Allowed

Hiralal Rama Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Sept 2017APEAL/416/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two criminal appeals against an order denying pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, which was previously rejected on account of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Protection of Atrocities Act. The court found no evidence of conspiracy or malafides in executing a sting operation and set aside the impugned order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hiralal Rama Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

5.apeal417.416.17.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 417 OF 2017

¶4

Amit Rishikesh Mishra. ... Appellant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Respondent

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2017

¶7

Hiralal Jadhav. ... Appellant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Respondent

¶8

Mr. A.H. H. Ponda a/w. Mr. Shailesh Kharat, advocate for appellant in Appeal No. 417/17.

¶9

Mr. Apoorv V. Singh, Advocate for appellant in Appeal No. 416/17.

¶10

Mr. Deepak Thakre a/w. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for State.

¶11

CORAM: RANJIT MORE & SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2017.

¶12

P.C .

¶13

Heard Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant in Criminal

¶14

Appeal No. 416/2017, Mr. Ponda, learned Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2017, Mr. Thakre, learned P.P. for the

¶15

Talwalkar

¶16

5.apeal417.416.17.sxw

¶17

¶18

Respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is also present in the court.

¶19

2 The appellants herein had filed an application seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No. 109 of 2016. The learned Sessions Judge in view of the impediment of Section 18 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Protection of Atrocities) Act had rejected the application by an order dated 2/1/2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

¶20

3 On 31/8/2016 the respondent No. 2 had lodged a report at Thane Nagar Police Station against Hiralal Jadhav (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2017) alleging therein that he has committed an offence under section 354 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of her report, Crime No. 147 of 2016 was registered against Hiralal Jadhav. As a consequence he was suspended.

¶21

4 According to the complainant, on 16/10/2016 she had noticed that her photograph was published in Daily Mumbai Mirror with a news item in

¶22

Talwalkar

¶23

3 5.apeal417.416.17.sxw

¶24

respect of the sting operation done by one Amit Mishra (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 417/2017) showing that the respondent No. 2 had demanded gratification. According to her, Hiralal Jadhav in order to wreck his personal vendetta had instigated Amit Mishra to conduct a sting operation and report about the same to the Anti Corruption Bureau. According to the complainant, Amit Mishra was acting upon the instructions of Hiralal Jadhav. On the basis of her report Crime No. 109 of 2017 is registered.

¶25

5 According to the complainant, the photo and news was published in Daily Mumbai Mirror to humiliate her and malign her image in public view. It is alleged that Hiralal Jadhav was circulating the said news item in the area of Thane prison. The complainant has further alleged that in fact, Amit Mishra had complained to the Anti Corruption Bureau. However, the Anti Corruption Bureau in peculiar facts of the case had not taken cognizance of the said complaint as there was no substance found in the said allegation. Appellant in criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2017 had handed over the video clip to the anti-corruption bureau and had also approached the office of Lokayukta by filing complaint. Upon perusal of the order

¶26

Talwalkar

¶27

5.apeal417.416.17.sxw

¶28

¶29

passed by the Lokayukta, it appears that the Lokayukta has observed that the contents of video clip may not be sufficient material to register a complaint. In view of the observations of the Anti-corruption Bureau as well as the Lokayukta, this Court is of the opinion that action on the part of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2017 cannot be said to be malafide.

¶30

6 Upon perusal of the records and after hearing submissions, it is clear that there is no material on record to remotely indicate that Hiralal had conspired with Amit Mishra and therefore, was responsible for the sting operation or the circulation of the news item. Similarly Amit Mishra also cannot be held to be liable for offence punishable under section 3(p)(r) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Protection of Atrocities) Act.

¶31

7 We accordingly dispose of the appeals by passing following order :

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) Both the Appeals are allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the order dated 2/1/2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Thane.

¶34

(ii) In the event of arrest, the appellants in both the appeals shall be

¶35

Talwalkar

¶36

5.apeal417.416.17.sxw

¶37

¶38

released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each

¶39

with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶40

[SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.]

¶41

[RANJIT MORE,J.)

¶42

Talwalkar

Hiralal Rama Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hiralal Rama Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Baban Gundu Pawar and Ors.

Kalpana Manoj Manudhane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sangappa Chandappa Chikkodi

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sandip Shankar Sawant and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sachin Hiraman Tayade and Ors.

Amit Rishikesh Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra