Allowed

Omkar @ Chikya Ananda Chougule v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2023APEAL/1231/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail appeal concerning offences under the IPC and SC/ST (PoA) Act for caste-based harassment and extortion, the High Court granted bail on the principle of parity with a co-accused, imposing a condition to report weekly despite the appellant's criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount, and directed to report to the police station once a week for one year.

Omkar @ Chikya Ananda Chougule Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

09-apeal-1231-22

¶2

1 of 6

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2022

¶5

Omkar @ Chikya Ananda Chougule..Appellant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr...Respondents

¶6

Mr. S. R. Moray i/b. Mr. Sukumar Ghanwat for Appellant.

¶7

Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent No.1.

¶8

Mr. Prashant Kamble (Appointed Advocate) for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 17 JANUARY 2023

¶10

PC :

¶11

1.The Appellant is seeking his release on bail in connection

¶12

with C.R.No.76 of 2022 registered with Miraj City police station,

¶13

Sangli, dated 02/03/2022, under sections 327, 294(2), 323, 504
and 506 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C., as well as, under sections 3(1)(r)(s),

¶14

3(2)(va) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶15

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶16

2.Heard Shri. Moray, learned counsel for the Appellant,

¶17

Smt. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State/Respondent No.1 and

¶18

Gokhale

¶19

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2023.01.18 14:24:01 +0530

¶20

2 of 609-apeal-1231-22

¶21

Shri. Prashant Kamble, learned Appointed Advocate for the
Respondent No.2.

¶22

3.The Appellant was arrested on 03/03/2022 and since
then he is in custody. The investigation is over and the charge-
sheet is already filed. The F.I.R. is lodged by the Respondent No.2.
He has stated that, he knew the accused in this case i.e. Saurabh
Potdar, Omkar Salunkhe, Nicolas Rathod and the present
appellant. The accused were harassing and creating disturbance in
the area. He has described the past incidents whenever he was
harassed by the accused. About 15 days prior to the lodging of the
F.I.R., there was an incident where all the accused had forcibly
removed Rs.400/- from the Respondent No.2. On 02/03/2022, the
first informant was returning from his school at 12.45p.m. At that
time, all the accused stopped him. They abused him in filthy
language. They abused him with reference to the caste and
demanded Rs.1100/-. The respondent No.2 refused to pay.
Therefore, he was assaulted with fist and kick blows. The
Appellant and Omkar Salunkhe searched his pockets. Saurabh
Potdar showed him a knife. Therefore, out of fear, he gave them

¶23

3 of 609-apeal-1231-22

¶24

Rs.540/-. They threatened him and told him that they must be
paid Rs.500/- each month. After that they left the place. The
shopkeepers in the locality and others got scared and they also
closed their shops and went away. On this basis the F.I.R. was
lodged.

¶25

4.The charge-sheet contains statements of the eye
witnesses namely Satyajeet Bhalkar, Mangesh Kadam, Pramod
Sable, Dr. Vidya Sawant, Pari Mahindrakar, Aditya Jagtap and
Hrishikesh Londhe. They have supported the first informant’s
narration. All of them have consistently stated that Nicolas Rathod
was abusing the Respondent No.2. Hrishikesh stated that Saurabh
Potdar was abusing the Respondent No.2 with reference to the
caste. This incident is supported by the eye witnesses.

¶26

5.Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that, he is a
young boy about 22 years of age. He is in custody since
03/03/2022. The main role is not attributed to him. Another
accused Omkar Salunkhe is granted bail by this court vide order
dated 11/10/2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.897 of 2022. The

¶27

4 of 609-apeal-1231-22

¶28

Appellant’s role is similar to the role attributed to Omkar
Salunkhe. Thus, on the ground of parity, the appellant deserves to
be released on bail.

¶29

6.Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that,
besides narration of the eye witnesses, there is one more
incriminating circumstance against the appellant i.e. recovery of
the exact amount which was extorted from the Respondent No.2.
The recovery was made at the instance of the appellant from his
house. He further submitted that, even the Respondent No.2 was a
young boy; he was harassed by all the accused.

¶30

7.Learned APP opposed this appeal and submitted that,
there are six previous offences registered against the appellant in
the same police station and in the police station of M.I.D.C.
Kupwad. Out of which, one offence is U/s.307 of the I.P.C. She,
therefore, opposed this appeal.

¶31

8.I have considered these submissions. As far as the
present offence is concerned, the Appellant’s role is similar to that
of Omkar Salunkhe who is granted bail by this Court. Therefore,

¶32

5 of 609-apeal-1231-22

¶33

on the principles of parity, the Appellant also deserves the same
leniency. There is recovery of the amount extorted from the
Respondent No.2 at the instance of the Appellant. At this stage,
there is sufficient material to show that the offence is committed
by the accused. However, it’s effect would be a matter of trial.
Today, I am only considering whether bail can be granted to the
appellant. The Appellant is a young boy. He deserves the same
treatment of parity as was given to Omkar in passing bail order in
his favour. There are antecedents against the appellant, but
conditions can be imposed on him to report to the police station;
which would keep a check on his activities. Considering this
discussion, the appellant can be granted bail in this case.

¶34

9.Hence, the following order:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

i)In connection with C.R.No.76 of 2022 registered

¶37

with Miraj City police station, Sangli, the
Appellant is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing P. R. bond in the sum of Rs.30000/-

¶38

09-apeal-1231-22

¶39

6 of 6

¶40

with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶41

ii)The Appellant shall report to the concerned police

¶42

station once in a week for a period of one year
from today.

¶43

iii)With these directions, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶44

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Omkar @ Chikya Ananda Chougule v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkar @ Chikya Ananda Chougule v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Satish Sharadchandra Sane and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Chandrakant Kale Vs State of Maharashtra

Shweta Nirpat Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Trambak Rambhau Sadgir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Suresh Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Punjgir Gosavi Vs State of Maharashtra