Appeal against rejection of bail in case concerning land dispute and caste-based allegations under Atrocities Act. Court dismissed appeal holding bar of Section 18-A applies.
Criminal appeal dismissed; bail application rejection affirmed.
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)
criapl225.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
911 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.225 OF 2021
BALASAHEB BABURAO SHEP VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr. P.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the appellant Mrs. G. L. Deshpande, APP for the respondent/State Mr. Sushant V. Dixit, Advocate for the respondent No.2
CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. DATE : 03-09-2021
P. C.
. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Bail Application No. 121 of 2021 in connection with Crime No. 126 of 2021 registered with Ambajogai City Police Station, Dist. Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 347, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the ‘Atrocities Act’).
1 of 5
(2) criapl225.21
It is also contended by the appellant that he has filed application to the Tahasildar for correction of revenue record. It is contended that false and bogus FIR came to be registered against him, due to land dispute. The trial court has not considered the dispute between himself and the informant in proper perspective and wrongly rejected the application for bail. Hence, he prayed for bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crime registered at the instance of informant with Ambajogai City Police Station.
2 of 5
(3)
criapl225.21
03-2021. On the basis of same, crime bearing No. 126 of 2021 was registered against the appellant.
3 of 5
(4) criapl225.21
against the appellant for various acts done by him (appellant) over the plot owned by him (informant). The informant has also produced on record the sale deed, mutation entry and tax receipts. The said documents shows that the informant is the owner and possessor of the plot No.18, from out of Survey No. 99, situated at Shepwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. The appellant is challenging the right, interest and title of the informant over the plot in question. It is specifically alleged against the appellant that he demolished the boundary wall of plot and put up his flex claiming right, interest and title over the plot of informant. Said act covers the provision of Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(r)(s) of the Atrocities Act. The informant categorically alleged that the appellant abused him and his wife over his caste and humiliated him in his plot. Said fact, prima-facie established that the appellant knew the caste of informant. He damaged the boundary wall and boundary stones and disturbed the boundary stones that belongs to the informant. Said acts falls within the definition of Section 3(1)(f)(g) of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, prima-facie there is material against the appellant involving him in the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(f)(g) of the Atrocities Act.
4 of 5
(5) criapl225.21
antecedents. Therefore, on this count also the appellant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has prima-facie established that the offence under the Atrocities Act is made out against the appellant. There is bar of Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, the prayer of appellant cannot be considered. The trial court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and rejected the application for pre-arrest bail of appellant. Said order dated 09-04-2021 passed in Bail Application No. 121 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai needs no interference. Hence, the criminal appeal stands dismissed.
[ SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. ]
VishalK/criapl225.21
5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail in a case involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Balasaheb Baburao Shep
The State of Maharashtra
Another
Surendra P. Tavade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
