Allowed

Rajeshwar @Kailash Ramdas Kale v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Khamgaon Distt. Buldhana

Bombay HC26 Aug 2022APEAL/856/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal arising from rejection of anticipatory bail application under S. 14-A of the Atrocities Act. The court held that since the FIR did not spell out basic ingredients of the offence, the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A did not apply. The appeal was allowed. The impugned order of rejection was set aside, and the earlier ad-interim order granting anticipatory bail was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail set aside; earlier ad-interim order of bail confirmed on same terms and conditions.

Rajeshwar @Kailash Ramdas Kale Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

2 cr. a. no.856.19.odt..odt

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.856 OF 2019

¶5

Rajeshwar @ Kailash Ramdas Kale

¶6

VS.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Khamgaon Rural, Buldhana and another

¶8

Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶9

Shri Shaharukh Shah, Advocate h/f Shri M.N. Ali, Advocate for the appellant. Shri M.J. Khan, APP for the respondent No.1/State. Shri Gopal G. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.

¶10

CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J. DATE : 26.08.2022

¶11

This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as Atrocities Act) 1989, challenging the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, whereby the anticipatory bail application made by the appellant was rejected.

¶12

Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that no prima-facie case has been made out to attract the provisions of Section 3 (1)(r)(s) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 in this case. Learned Advocate pointed out that the report lodged by the informant was by way of counter blast to the report lodged by the daughter of the appellant. Learned Advocate submitted

¶13

2/3

¶14

2 cr. a. no.856.19.odt..odt

¶15

that in this case, bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities Act, 1989, would not apply.

¶16

Learned APP for the respondent No.1/State submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded the cogent reasons for rejecting the application. Learned APP submitted that allegations in the First Information Report are sufficient to attract the bar provided under Sections 18 and 18-A.

¶17

Learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 submitted that this appeal is not at all maintainable. In the submission of learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 the allegations recorded in the First Information Report clearly indicate the commission of offence under Atrocities Act, 1989.

¶18

Perusal of the record would show that this Court vide order dated 24.12.2019 had granted a protection to the appellant from arrest in this case. This Court has categorically recorded the facts vis-a-vis the report lodged by the daughter of the appellant against the respondent No.2, prior to this report. The offence registered on the report of daughter of appellant was relating to her sexual harassment.

¶19

With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties, I have gone through the facts recorded in the First Information Report. Perusal of the First Information Report would clearly indicate that basic ingredients of the offence

¶20

3/3

¶21

2 cr. a. no.856.19.odt..odt

¶22

under Section 3 (1)(r)(s) have not been spelt out. It is to be noted that while deciding the application for anticipatory bail, prima-facie analysis of the First Information Report is necessary. On perusal of the First Information Report, it prima-facie indicates that basic ingredients are not made out. Therefore, objection on the ground of maintainability in such matter loses of its significance.

¶23

In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that bar under Sections 18 and 18-A would not stand in the way of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶24

Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned Additions Sessions Judge, Khamgaon rejecting the anticipatory bail application is set aside. The order granting ad-interim anticipatory bail vide order 24.12.2019 stands confirmed on same terms and conditions.

¶25

The Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

manisha Signed By:MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE

¶28

Signing Date:26.08.2022 18:05

Rajeshwar @Kailash Ramdas Kale v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Khamgaon Distt. Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar @Kailash Ramdas Kale v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Khamgaon Distt. Buldhana

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

Sudam Ghanshyam Amrute Vs State of Mah., and Others

State of Maharashtra Thr. Anti Corruption Bureau Vs Shri Gopalrao S/O Narayanrao Navkare

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur Vs Sudhakar S/O Tukaramji Dhatrak

Nilesh Purushottam Bamnote Vs the State of Mah., Thr. Pso Mangrul Dastagir Tq Dhamangaon Railway Dist Amravati

Sushil @ Pintu Rajendra Wankhede Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. District Government Pleader, Amravati, Dist. Amravati Pso Badnera

Motiram S/O Shiva Pawar and 3 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Ps Pusad City