Partly allowed

Kashinath Kisan Deokate v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2017APEAL/173/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Criminal Judicature at Bombay dismissed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. The court held that an offence was made out under the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Consequently, anticipatory bail was denied. However, interim protection was extended by four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail is dismissed. The interim protection is extended for a period of four weeks.

Kashinath Kisan Deokate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

11. cri apeal 173-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2017

¶5

Kashinath Kisan Deokate

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances
Mr. Sujay Hemant Gangal i/by
Somya R. Kokare	Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. H.J. Dedia	APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶12

M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶13

DATE : APRIL 4, 2017.

¶14

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

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against

¶17

the order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional

¶18

Sessions Judge, Baramati in Anticipatory Bail Application No.

¶19

640 of 2016 preferred by the appellant wherein he had

¶20

sought anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 725/2016 of Indapur

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

¶22

11. cri apeal 173-17.doc

¶23

Police Station. By order dated 30.12.2016, the said

¶24

anticipatory bail application came to be rejected.

¶25

According to the first informant, on 11.12.2016 between 11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m., the first informant approached the appellant and told him to release water in their pond. At that time, the appellant is stated to have told

¶26

him that he is an officer and he knows what he should do and he should not be told what he should do. It is the further case of the first informant that thereafter the appellant told the first informant that " rq÷;klkj[;k egjk&ekaxkP;k nfyr la?kVuk fdrh rjh vkY;k o xsY;k- ek>s dq.kh okdMs d# 'kdr ukgh- " The appellant further told the informant that he had a revolver and he would finish the informant.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

¶28

the incident has occurred on 11.12.2016, however, the FIR is lodged on 17.12.2016. Thus, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which shows that the FIR is a false and

¶29

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

¶30

11. cri apeal 173-17.doc

¶31

concocted one and lodged as an afterthought. However, the

¶32

learned APP in this connection stated that the first informant addressed a letter to P.I. of Indapur Police Station on 12.12.2016 stating therein that the appellant had insulted

¶33

him using the words in relation to his caste and hence, the FIR be lodged against the appellant. In this communication, the first informant has given gist of the incident which occurred on 11.12.2016. In addition, the learned APP pointed out that on 18.1.2017, the appellant pointed a revolver at the head of the first informant and threatened to kill him if he did not withdraw his complaint i.e the FIR in the present case. In relation to this incident, N.C. was lodged by the first informant which is N.C.R. No. 93/2017. Learned APP submitted that if the appellant is granted anticipatory bail, he will threaten the witnesses and tamper with them. Looking to the facts relating to N.C.R. No. 93/2017, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without any basis.

¶34

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

¶35

11. cri apeal 173-17.doc

¶36

On perusal of the FIR and the other documents in this

¶37

case, it is seen that an offence is made out under the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In this view of the matter, Section 18

¶38

of the said Act would be attracted and anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶39

At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant prays that the interim protection granted earlier by this Court be extended for a period of four weeks. In view of the prayer, the interim protection is extended by a period of four weeks from today.

¶40

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶41

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶42

4 of 4

Kashinath Kisan Deokate v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Kisan Deokate v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar S Krishnamurthy and Ors. Vs Union of India, through the Chairman and Ors.

Haresh Bhadra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Monish Bhandharkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Hiralal Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jarina Pirmohammed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shriniwas Kishor Sanga Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.