Criminal Appeal against bail granted to husband's relatives and in-laws alleging domestic cruelty. Court upheld bail despite lack of victim hearing, finding no prejudice caused.
Criminal Appeal dismissed, bail orders upheld, rule discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 CriAl-444-19-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2019
| Jyoti w/o. Nitin Mandole, | |
|---|---|
| Age 36 years, Occu. Service, R/o. 71, Utkarsh Colony, Sakri Road, Dhule, District Dhule. .. Appellant |
|
| VERSUS | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through Dhule (City) Police Station, Dhule, District Dhule. |
| 2 | The Dhule City Police Station Dhule, Through its Investigation Officer, i.e. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhule City Region, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. |
| 3 | Vidya Shashikant Jadhav @ Sau. Vidya Pankaj Kulkarni, Age 44 years, Occu. Private Tuition, R/o. 204, B Wing, Mid Town, Phase-I, Shinde Vasti, Sector-29, Ravet, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune, Taluka and District Pune. |
| 4 | Yogeshwari d/o. Dnyaneshwar Mandole @ Sau. Nandini w/o. Shankar Rokade, Age 37 years, Occu. Teacher, R/o. Sillod, Taluka Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. |
| 5 | Maya Dnyaneshwar Mandole, @ Sau. Mamta w/o. Ravindra Suryawanshi, Age 34 years, Occu. Service, R/o. “Aashirwad”, Plot No. 47, Nutan Varsha Colony, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon. |
| 6 | Dimple Vasant Deshpande @ Nikita Mahesh Jangam, Age 35 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Village Khed Shivapur, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. |
| 7 | Vasant Anant Deshpande, Age 63 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Village Khed Shivapur, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. |
| 8 | Usha Vasant Deshpande, Age 60 years, Occu. Household, Respondents |
| R/o. Village Khed Shivapur, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. .. (Original Accused) |
2 CriAl-444-19-J
Mr. Vithal M. Dighe, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. V. M. Lomte, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5. Mr. S. B. Kadu, Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 8. Mr. R. B. Ade, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE & K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 08th AUGUST, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
( PER : K. K. SONAWANE, J. )
Heard. Admit . The present matter is taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both sides.
3 CriAl-444-19-J
but did not evoke result. Eventually, she approached to the learned Magistrate and filed the private complaint. Pursuant to order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the crime came to be registered against husband and other inmates of matrimonial home at Dhule City Police Station for investigation into the allegation. According to learned counsel, the Investigating Officer (IO) did not apprehend the respondents No. 3 to 8-herein for the sake of investigation. The learned trial Court also did not make any enquiry and without appreciating factual aspect of the matter, granted bail to the respondents No. 3 to 8. The learned counsel raised objection and submits that the impugned order of granting bail to the respondents No. 3 to 8 by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, imperfect and contrary to law. The opportunity of hearing was not provided to the appellant as prescribed under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (Hereinafter, referred to it as, “Act of 1989”, for the sake of brevity). Therefore, learned counsel for appellant prayed to revoke the impugned order of granting bail in favour of respondents No. 3 to 8 and they be arrested into the crime registered against them.
4 CriAl-444-19-J
The respondents No. 7 and 8 are the in-laws of the appellant-original complainant and they are old aged senior citizen residing separate at Pune. Moreover, investigation has already been completed. IO preferred the charge-sheet against accused. In view of nature of subject-matter, IO did not feel it necessary to arrest the present respondents No. 3 to 8 for the sake of investigation, but IO proceed to issue notice under section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the respondents No. 3 to 8 as per directions of the IO appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and surrendered themselves to the custody of the Court for facing trial. The respondents No. 3 to 8 moved an application seeking bail into the crime. The learned Sessions Judge considered the nature of crime and gravity of allegations nurtured against accused and proceeded to admit them on bail by exercising judicial discretion. In such circumstances, we are not prepared to cause any interference at the behest of appellant in the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court.
5 CriAl-444-19-J
to the victim of the crime to be heard at any proceeding under the Act of 1989 in respect of bail, etc. But, it does not mean that Court can not exercise the discretion in absence of victim of the crime into the matter, if it would not cause any injustice and prejudice to him/her.
[ K. K. SONAWANE ] [ T.V. NALAWADE ] JUDGE JUDGE
MTK.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can interfere with the trial court's discretion in granting bail to female respondents and senior citizens.
Whether the compliance of Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is mandatory even when absence of the victim does not cause prejudice.
Whether the Criminal Appeal challenging the bail orders lacks merit.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jyoti w/o. Nitin Mandole
The State of Maharashtra Through Dhule (City) Police Station
The Dhule City Police Station Dhule
Vidya Shashikant Jadhav
Yogeshwari d/o. Dnyaneshwar Mandole
Maya Dnyaneshwar Mandole
T.V. Nalawade
K. K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
