Allowed

Ravindra S/O Kesharao Mendhe v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Ner, Tah. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal and 2 Others

Bombay HC8 Feb 2022APEAL/533/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against an order of Additional Sessions Judge rejecting pre-arrest bail. High Court allowed bail citing lack of prima facie caste humiliation and allowing conditions to prevent witness tampering. Disposed in favor of appellant.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing Criminal Bail Application No. 328/2020 made absolute with direction to attend police station when called by Investigating Officer.

Ravindra S/O Kesharao Mendhe Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

26apeal533.20.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 533/2020

¶5

(Ravindra S/o Keshaorao Mendhe V/s. State of Maharashtra)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Mr. P. P. Jamnik, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. A. A. Pannase, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶8

CORAM:- SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.

¶9

DATED :- 08.02.2022

¶10

Hearing was conducted through Video
Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.

¶11

2.Heard learned counsel for the appellant,
learned APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A. A.
Pannase, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶12

3.This is an appeal against the order dated
19.12.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Yavatmal in Criminal Bail Application No. 328/2020. One
Sau. Sarita Pawar – informant lodged complaint against
the applicant on 09.08.2020. It is alleged in the First
Information Report that on 08.08.2020 at 05.00 p.m., the
informant along with one lady namely Shrirke Pawar
went to answer the natures call near the river. At that
time, applicant came there. On seeing applicant, the
informant raised shouts. The applicant abused informant

¶13

Gohane

¶14

2 26apeal533.20.odt

¶15

and another lady in filthy language pertaining to their
caste and also threatened to kill them. Therefore,
informant lodged report. On the basis of the report,
crime bearing No. 280/2020 came to be registered
against the applicant for the offence punishable under
Sections 354(C), 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC and ST Act’).

¶16

4.On the basis of allegations in the FIR,
learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are
no allegations against the applicant that he abused
informant and another lady over their caste and
humiliated them. He submits that the trial Court has
wrongly interpreted the provisions of SC and ST Act and
rejected the application. It is contended that the
custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.
There is no possibility of tampering of witnesses. He
therefore prays for bail.

¶17

5.On the other hand, learned APP has filed
reply, wherein it is contended that the informant belongs
to the Scheduled Tribe Category. The applicant tried to
outrage the modesty of the informant and abused on her
caste. Therefore, offence under the provisions of SC and
ST Act is made out. Hence, there is bar of Section 18 of
the SC and ST Act to entertain the present appeal. It is

¶18

Gohane

¶19

3 26apeal533.20.odt

¶20

contended that the statement of informant and another
lady have been recorded. There are specific allegations
against the appellant that he tried to outrage the modesty
of the informant and threatened her. Therefore, offence
is made out against him and investigation is in progress.

¶21

6.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that
there is no avernment in the FIR which constitute the
prima facie. There is nothing to show that the informant
was humiliated over her caste within the ‘public view’.
On perusal of FIR, it appears that the applicant went to
the place where the informant and another lady went to
answer the natures call. On seeing the applicant, the
informant raised shouts therefore, he abused informant
and another lady, and also threatened them. Seeing lady
while answering natures calls can be called a breach of
privacy of the women. The report was filed in the month
of August 2020. The Statement of witnesses are already
recorded. The investigation is almost completed Nothing
is to be recovered at the hands of the applicant. It is
apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant may
threaten the informant or tamper with the prosecution
witnesses. Said apprehension can be avoided by
imposing condition. Therefore, in view of allegations
made in the FIR and the stage of investigation, I am of
the opinion that the applicant is entitled for pre-arrest
bail. Hence, I pass following order:-

¶22

Gohane

¶23

4 26apeal533.20.odt

¶24

(I)Application stands allowed and disposed of.

¶25

(II)Order dated 30.12.2020 is hereby made
absolute on the same terms and condition with a
direction to attend the concerned Police Station as and
when called by the Investigating Officer.

¶26

 (SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J)

¶27

Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARAT BHARAT GOHANE GOHANE Date:2022.02.10 18:00:57 +0530

¶28

Gohane

Ravindra S/O Kesharao Mendhe v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Ner, Tah. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra S/O Kesharao Mendhe v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Ner, Tah. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal and 2 Others

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

Kunal @ Kundan S/O Dhammapal @ Sunil Gopnarayan Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Midc Tq. and Dist.Akola

Vijaykumar S/O. Vasudev Yergude Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Sindewahi Tq. Sindewahi Dist. Chandrapur

Khilesh S/O Bijendra Shahu Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S., Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur

Swapnil S/O Gopinath Pawar and 3 Others Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Anjangaon Tq. Anjangaon Surji Dist.Amravati

Prafulla S/O Narendra Watane Vs Uniqu Institute of Higher Learning Private Limited (Directors of the Unique Academy, Pune) and 3

Akshay S/O Dnyaneshwar Rankhamb Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Wadgaon Road Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal and Another