Tryambak Sakharam Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

( 1 ) crap351.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

23 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.351 OF 2021

¶4

TRYAMBAK SAKHARAM SONAR

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Mr.K.P. Rodge, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.R.B. Bagul, APP for the respondent/State.
Mr.Shaikh Tarek Mobin H., Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.
DATED :06.09.2021

¶9

PC :-

¶10

01.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

¶11

order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambad in
Criminal Bail Application No.150 of 2021, present
appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶12

02.Facts giving rise to the present appeal can be
summarized as under :-

¶13

03.The appellant along with one person are

¶14

prosecuted by respondent No.2 for the offences punishable
under sections 354A, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal

¶15

Code and section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.

¶16

04.It is alleged by the informant-respondent No.2
that on 26.05.2021 at about 09.30 a.m. she along with her
son Prasad and husband Sanjay went to their field. It is
contended that her husband, son and father-in-law stayed
in the farm house situated in the field and she was
collecting fire-wood. On that day at about 4.30 p.m.

¶17

when she was working in the field, the appellant along
with Digambar entered into her field. The appellant
asked her to come along with him as he had some work, but
the informant-respondent No.2 asked the appellant to
disclose the said work then and there, but appellant and
Digambar – co-accused held hand of the informant and
pulled her. It is contended that the informant raised
shouts. On hearing shouts, son and husband of the
informant rushed to the spot and they stopped the
appellant and Digambar - co-accused and asked them why

¶18

they held hand of the informant. Over this, the appellant
held hand of the husband of the informant and also
assaulted him by fist and kick blows. It is also alleged
that the appellant while leaving the spot threatened the
informant and her family members with dire consequences.
Accordingly the informant came to Ghansawangi Police
Station and lodged report. On the basis of said report
crime bearing No.171 of 2021 came to be registered.

¶19

05.On the basis of contents of the FIR, learned

¶20

Counsel for the appellant submits that the informant
lodged false FIR to take revenge of their arrest at the
hands of appellant. He also contended that on 27.03.2021
the appellant had lodged complaint against the informant
and her husband with Kadim Police Station for the
offences punishable under sections 324, 327, 364, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the FIR, crime

¶21

bearing No.135 of 2021 was registered against the
informant and her husband. Both of them were arrested
and they were in custody for about three weeks. It is

¶22

contended that after release from jail to take revenge of
their arrest, the informant lodged false and bogus
complaint. There are no allegations against the appellant
that he hurled any abuses to the informant or her family
members. It is contended that the informant is sister-
in-law of the appellant, but said fact is conspicuously
missing in the FIR. It is contended that the informant
simply alleged that the land of the appellant is nearby
her land and he entered in her land and pulled her hand.
It is contended that no cause for appellant to enter in
the land is shown in the FIR. It is simply mentioned in
the FIR that the appellant along with Digambar entered in
the field of the informant and pulled her. It is also
submitted that the informant should have given some cause
for the incident. In absence of said cause, it can be
said that to take revenge of arrest, appellant was
falsely prosecuted.

¶23

06.On the other hand, learned APP and Counsel for
respondent No.2 submit that there are specific

¶24

allegations against the appellant that he pulled the
informant and outraged her modesty. Therefore, prima
facie, offence under section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the
Atrocities Act is made out against the appellant.
Therefore, there is bar of section 18-A of the Atrocities
Act to entertain the present appeal. Thus, it is prayed
that the appeal be dismissed.

¶25

07.Heard Counsel for the appellant, APP for the
State and Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the FIR.
It is mentioned in the FIR that the land of Digamber -
co-accused is adjacent to the land of informant and land
of appellant is adjacent to the land of Digamber. There
is no mention in the FIR that either Digambar or
appellant are having any land dispute with the informant.
The informant has alleged that on 26.05.2021 at about
4=30 p.m. appellant entered into her land and asked her
to accompany him which she refused. Therefore, the
appellant and his associate held her hand. Even if said
allegations are taken as it is, it can be said that the

¶26

( 6 ) crap351.21

¶27

appellant did not give any cause for the incident.

¶28

08.On the other hand, the appellant came with story

¶29

that on 27.03.2021, he had lodged complaint against the
informant and her husband. On the basis of said
complaint, crime was registered against the informant and
her husband. Both of them were arrested and they were in
custody for about three weeks. It is also contended that
the appellant had sustained injuries and he was
hospitalized. If these facts are taken into account, it
can be said that there is substance in the submission of
the appellant that in order to take revenge of arrest,
informant had filed complaint against them. It also
appears that the informant is sister-in-law of the
appellant, but no-where in the FIR there is mention of
their relation. The informant simply alleged that the
appellant is her adjacent land-holder and he entered into
her field and outraged her modesty. It was expected from
the informant to at-least give some plausible explanation

¶30

or cause for alleged incident, which is completely

¶31

missing from the FIR. The fact of arrest of the informant
and her husband is not denied. Similarly, their
detention in the jail is also not denied. So, there is
possibility that out of vengeance, the appellant could
have been prosecuted by the informant.

¶32

09.Learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No.2
submits that the Court should not evaluate evidence of
the case. He relied upon ratio in the case ofVilas

¶33

Pandurang Pawar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8

¶34

SCC 795, wherein it is held as under :-

¶35

“9) Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for
invoking Section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is
cast on the court to verify the averments in the
complaint and to find out whether an offence under
Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made
out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in
the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with
intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the
accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶36

10) The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with
Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a
specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an
offence is registered against a person under the
provisions of the SC/ST Act, no Court shall entertain
application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie
finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover,
while considering the application for bail, scope for
appreciation of evidence and other material on record is
limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical

¶37

( 8 ) crap351.21

¶38

analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has
been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons
who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under
Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special
Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate
discussion on the evidence.

¶39

10.Looking to the nature of allegation, it can be
said that there are no allegations that the appellant

¶40

abused or humiliated the informant on her caste. In-
fact, the appellant knew the caste of the informant. So,
it was easy for the informant to allege that her modesty
was outraged because of her caste. But such allegations
are not mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, if allegations
made in the FIR are read as it is, it can not be said
that the appellant outraged the modesty of the informant.
It appears that the contents of FIR do not establish the
intention of the appellant to humiliate the informant
over her caste. Therefore, prima facie, offence
punishable under section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Atrocities
Act is not made out against the appellant. On going
through both the FIRs and statements of the parties, I am
of the opinion that prima facie the offence punishable

¶41

under section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Atrocities Act is not
made out against the appellant. The alleged incident had
taken place in the month of May, 2021. Investigation
might have been over. But at the same time attendance of
the appellant is just required for completion of
investigation. Therefore, attendance of the appellant
would suffice purpose of the investigation. Hence, I
pass following order :-

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

i)The appeal is allowed.
ii)In the event of arrest, the appellant
is ordered to be released on bail on his
executing PR and SB of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand) with directions to attend
police station everyday from 07.09.2021 till
21.09.2021 between 10=00 a.m. to 12=00 noon.
The appellant is directed to co-operate the
Investigating Officer. He is also directed not
to tamper with prosecution witnesses, in any
manner, whatsoever.

¶44

snk/2021/SEP21/crap351.21

Tryambak Sakharam Sonar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tryambak Sakharam Sonar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Anita W/O. Gorakh Mindhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balasaheb Baburao Shep Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Balasaheb Somnath Latke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Harappa Ventures through Its Partner Ravikant Ambadas Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandanlal S/O. Surajlal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Popat Maruti Kutal Vs Shakuntala W/O. Kaushik More and Others