Allowed

Shrikant Hanumant Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Feb 2017APEAL/114/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail appeal for four appellants in a case involving alleged caste-based assault. The court noted prima facie evidence of false FIR lodged by the complainant due to reciprocal criminal acts and enmity. Bail granted with ₹15,000 bond each and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order in Cr. Bail Application No. 44 of 2017 quashed; appellants enlarged on bail by furnishing bonds of ₹15,000 each with sureties subject to reporting conditions.

Shrikant Hanumant Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

6. cri apeal 114-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2017

¶5

Shrikant Hanumant Shinde

¶6

Anita @ Gangubai Hanumant Shinde

¶7

Swati Dattatraya Gaikwad

¶8

Hanumant Rama Shinde

¶9

Appellants

¶10

(Org. Accused Nos. 1 to 4)

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Maharashtra

¶13

.. Respondent

¶14

Appearances

¶15

Mr. Ritesh M. Thobde	Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. Ujwal Agandsurve	Advocate for Original Complainant
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar	APP for the State

¶16

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶17

REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶18

DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2017.

¶19

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

By this appeal, the appellants - original accused Nos. 1

¶22

to 4 have impugned the order dated 19.1.2017 passed by

¶23

the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Solapur in Criminal

¶24

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

¶25

6. cri apeal 114-17.doc

¶26

Bail Application No. 44 of 2017. The appellants are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 568/2016 registered with Tembhurni Police Station, Solapur for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶27

3. The complainant Chingu Babasaheb Taktode belongs to

¶28

the schedule caste whereas the appellants are stated to be upper caste Hindus. According to the complainant, on 27.12.2016 at about 7.00 a.m., when she was sweeping in front of her house, the appellants came there and started abusing her in relation to her caste and also assaulted her

¶29

with iron rod and threatened her. The medical certificate produced by the learned APP shows that the complainant has sustained only two simple injuries.

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

¶31

6. cri apeal 114-17.doc

¶32

As far as giving of abuses is concerned, a general role is attributed to the appellants and it is not stated which of the four appellants have actually given abuses to the complainant. It cannot be imagined that all the four appellants would have abused the complainant in relation to her caste in unison and all of them uttered exactly the same words.

¶33

Looking to the general role stated by the complainant

¶34

in her FIR as well as by the persons who are closely related to the complainant, it appears that on account of enmity between the parties, the complaint has been falsely lodged. We say so because it is also an admitted fact that appellant No. 1 Shrikant Hanumant Shinde on the very same date i.e 27.12.2016 has also lodged FIR No. 571/2016 against the present complainant Chingu and seven others including Laxmi who is a witness in the present case. The said FIR is under Sections 326, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶35

In his FIR, Shrikant has also complained about the assault on

¶36

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

¶37

6. cri apeal 114-17.doc

¶38

him and his mother by Chingu that is the complainant in the

¶39

present case. The papers pertaining to C.R. No. 571/2016 show that the mother of Shrikant had sustained fracture of the hand in the said incident. She is appellant No. 2 in the present case. Looking to the fact that there was enmity between two groups, prima facie, it appears that the complaint has been falsely lodged by the complainant Chingu. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled for pre-arrest bail, hence, we pass the following order:-

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶42

ii. The impugned order dated 19.1.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge - 4, Solapur in Criminal Bail Application No. 44 of 2017 is quashed and set aside.

¶43

iii. In the event of arrest, the appellant Nos. 1 to 4 i.e Shrikant Hanumant Shinde, Anita @ Gangubai Hanumant Shinde, Swati Dattatraya Gaikwad and

¶44

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

¶45

6. cri apeal 114-17.doc

¶46

Hanumant Rama Shinde be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs. 15,000/each [ Rs. Fifteen Thousand Each ] with one or two sureties to make up the said amount.

¶47

iv. The appellants shall report to Tembhurni Police Station, Solapur everyday from 11 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for fifteen days from 24.2.2017 and thereafter as and when called.

¶48

The observations made in this order are prima facie observations and they were made only for considering this bail application. The trial Court shall not be influenced by

¶49

any observations in this order at the time of the trial.

¶50

[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶51

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5

Shrikant Hanumant Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Hanumant Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Ram Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Lahu Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bistappa Yallappa Bandargali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanmant Nagnath Surwase Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Ors.

Abdul Jabbar Majid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra