In criminal appeal against bail, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that despite the appellant not being named in the FIR, investigation details and CCTV footage identified him as the person who abused and assaulted the informant, establishing a prima facie case under the Atrocities Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 1 ) crap161.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2023
BALU RAMKISAN DHAKANE VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Mr.A.D. Aghav, Advocate for the appellant.
Mrs.D.S. Jape, APP for the respondent/State.
Mr.S.E. Shekade, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM: KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATED: 18.04.2023
PC :-
01.Heard learned Advocates for the parties. This appeal is filed by
the accused, who is not named in the FIR and who is referred to as one person
in the FIR. The role alleged against the appellant is that he abused the
informant in the name of caste and he also assaulted the informant. The
learned Advocate for the appellant submits that he is not specifically named in
the FIR. He is referred only as “one person” in the FIR and prays for bail in the
event of arrest.
02.The learned APP submits that in the FIR though it is stated to be
two persons, but there is specific reference as one of them was girl i.e.
appellant in connected Criminal Appeal No.160 of 2023 and the other person
was present appellant. There is no mention of any other third person in the
FIR. In the investigation it transpired that it is this appellant, who had abused
the informant in the name of caste and has also assaulted the informant.
03.The learned Advocate for respondent No.2 also opposes the
appeal. He submits that there is reference to only two persons, one is about a
girl that was sitting on the motor-cycle and one who abused in the name of
caste also assaulted the informant. When the incident took place, there was
no reason for the informant to take name of the accused persons. During the
investigation and from the CCTV footage, it is clearly seen that it is the
appellant, who assaulted and abused the informant in the name of caste and
prays for rejection of the appeal.
04.On going through the papers of investigation and it is seen that
there are statements of other independent persons recorded by police. There
is also statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of one witness, who
has clearly identified the appellant from CCTV footage as the same person,
who abused the informant in the name of caste. From the police papers, it is
also seen that the injuries of the informant are shown to be grievous. There
are four injuries. One of them is grievous. Even witness Sudhakar also
received injuries, though his injuries are shown to be simple. It shows that the
appellant had intention not only to abuse the informant in the name of caste
but has also assaulted the informant. If during the investigation his name is
transpired and even in CCTV footage this appellant is seen, this Court find
that certainly this is sufficient material to show that the appellant is involved
in the offence and a case under the Atrocities Act is prima facie made out
against him. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to allow the appeal.
05. The appeal stands dismissed.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2023/APR23/crap161.23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant, identified as 'one person' in the FIR but clearly shown in CCTV footage as the one who abused and assaulted the informant, is involved in the offence to warrant rejection of the
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BALU RAMKISAN DHAKANE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
KISHORE C. SANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court