Allowed

Gajanan Narhari Karpe v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC6 Jul 2021APPLN/742/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. Finding the IPC offences bailable, the court noted the scarcity of prima facie evidence of caste-based abuse in public and the lack of allegations of liberty misuse during the trial, releasing the appellant on bail.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended pending appeal. Appellant released on bail on personal recognizance of Rs. 25,000/- and surety in like amount, conditioned not to contact the prosecutrix.

Gajanan Narhari Karpe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 742 OF 2021 IN

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2021

¶4

Gajanan s/o Narhari Karpe,
Age : 41 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Jawalban, Tal. Kaij,
District Beed, at present
R/o Swarajya Nagar, Beed,APPLICANT/
Tq. & District Beed APPELLANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Inspector, Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Tq. and District Beed

¶7

2. Dushanta d/o Devidas Ramteke, Age : 42 years, Occu. Service, R/o c/o Sou. KSK College, Beed RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant/appellant
Mr. S.N. Morampalle, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State
Smt. Sheetal Waghmare, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM :MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

¶10

DATE :06.07.2021

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

This is an application for suspension of sentence under Section

¶13

¶14

CRIAPLN742-2021

¶15

389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure coupled with a prayer for bail during
pendency of the appeal against conviction of the applicant/appellant for the
offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 504 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (“Atrocities Act”, for
short) and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶16

2.Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, the learned A.P.P.
and the learned Advocate for respondent No.2/prosecutrix.

¶17

3.Since, for the present, we are concerned only with the prayer for
suspension of sentence and bail during pendency of the appeal, the scrutiny
needs to be restricted.

¶18

4.The prosecutrix and the applicant/appellant have been
colleagues in an education institute. She was already married having
children. She alleged that applicant was stalking her and even sent her links
on whats-app of some obscene material. She lodged a grievance with the
Management and he was suspended. It is then alleged that annoyed by such
suspension, he on two occasions intercepted her on way to home and hurled
abuses on caste-line. She lodged FIR and the crime was registered.

¶19

5.Admittedly, the applicant was on bail during the trial. Though
now respondent No.2/prosecutrix apprehends that the applicant would
threaten and harass her for the obvious reasons, conspicuously there are no

¶20

¶21

CRIAPLN742-2021

¶22

allegations about he having misused the liberty during the trial.

¶23

6.The offences for which the applicant/appellant has been
convicted under the Indian Penal Code are bailable.

¶24

7. So far as the offences under the Atrocities Act are concerned,
the sentences attributed to him by the prosecutrix do not conspicuously show
about the name of the caste having been suffixed or prefixed with some
abuses much less in filthy language. Besides, prima facie, there are no
allegations about the abuses having been hurled at her in public view. There
are no eye witnesses to that incident except the prosecutrix herself.

¶25

8. Considering all the above facts and circumstances and taking

¶26

into account the fact that in view of the pendency of the appeals in this
Court, the appeal preferred by the applicant/appellant is not likely to be
heard in the near future, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶27

9.The application is allowed. The substantive sentence is
suspended pending the appeal. The applicant/appellant is released on bail
on his executing a personal recognizance for an amount of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and furnishing a solvent surety in the like
amount subject to the condition that he shall not make any attempt to
contact the prosecutrix directly or indirectly. Bail before the Trial Court.

¶28

CRIAPLN742-2021

¶29

¶30

10. Since learned Advocate Smt. Sheetal Waghmare was appointed

¶31

by this Court to defend the case of respondent No.2/prosecutrix in this
application, her fees is quantified at Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand).

¶32

[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE

¶33

npj/CRIAPLN742-2021

Gajanan Narhari Karpe v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan Narhari Karpe 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Jagannath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Bapuraoji Gulkari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamlakar Dattatraya Chikhle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rojmery W/O Ashok Shinde Vs Ashok Sadanand Shinde

Nanda D/O. Sopan Kardile @ Nanda W/O. Dnyandeo Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ushadevi W/O. Jaydeep Kakade Vs Nanasaheb S/O. Vinayak Kokate and Others