Allowed

Namdev @ Shrikant Pandurang Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2023APEAL/1691/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed the anticipatory bail order lower courts passed and granted fresh anticipatory bail to the appellant for a potential arrest in a caste-atrocity case involving Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Section 506 IPC, finding merits in the delay and false implication allegations.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted: Anticipatory bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 30,000 with sureties in the event of arrest.

Namdev @ Shrikant Pandurang Patil Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

05-apeal-1691-19

¶2

1 of 6

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1691 OF 2019

¶5

Namdev @ Shrikant Pandurang Patil..Appellant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Shekhar Ingawale for Appellant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
Mr. Vikas Singh (Appointed Advocate) for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 23 JANUARY 2023

¶8

PC :

¶9

1.The Appellant has challenged the order dated

¶10

04/12/2019 passed by learned Special Judge and Additional
Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Bail Application No.1087 of
2019. In effect, the Appellant is seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No.97 of 2019 registered with Kale police

¶11

station, Kolhapur, on 24/11/2019 under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 506 of the
I.P.C.

¶12

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2023.01.24 Gokhale 15:27:33 +0530

¶13

2 of 605-apeal-1691-19

¶14

2.Heard Shri. Shekhar Ingawale, learned counsel for the
Appellant, Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the State/Respondent
No.1 and Shri. Vikas Singh, learned Appointed Advocate for the
Respondent No.2.

¶15

3.The F.I.R. is lodged by the Respondent No.2 on
24/11/2019. He has stated that, on 03/11/2019, there was some
dispute between the Respondent No.2’s community members and
one Sambhaji Kamble. Because of that, Sambhaji Kamble had
given complaint to the same police station against 17 people. On
11/11/2019, around 8 people including the Respondent No.2’s
sons were arrested in that connection. On 12/11/2019, at around
9.30a.m., the Respondent No.2, Rahul Kamble, Vishwas Kamble
etc. were discussing regarding future course of action for getting
the arrested people released on bail. It is alleged that, at that time,
the Appellant came near them and abused them with reference to
the caste. He also threatened them. On this basis the F.I.R. is
lodged.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the

¶17

3 of 605-apeal-1691-19

¶18

alleged incident had taken place on 12/11/2019 and the F.I.R. is
lodged on 24/11/2019. The delay has remained unexplained. He
submitted that the F.I.R. itself indicates that the Respondent No.2
had reasons to implicate the Appellant falsely because he was
holding the Appellant responsible for the arrest of his sons and
other people in connection with the earlier offence. Learned
counsel for the appellant invited my attention to an N.C. complaint
lodged on 24/11/2019 by the Appellant against one Pradip
Kamble mentioning that false allegations were made against the
Appellant. The police have also filed a report regarding that N.C.
that the Appellant had not committed any act regarding which
rumors were spread by Pradip. In this background, the F.I.R.
against the Appellant was lodged in the evening on 24/11/2019.
The N.C. was lodged at the instance of the Appellant on
24/11/2019 at 4.30p.m. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, thus, obviously, present F.I.R. is a counter blast to the
N.C.. It is filed to pressurize the Appellant.

¶19

5. Learned APP produced the investigation papers before

¶20

me. The statement in the F.I.R. is supported by the witnesses

¶21

4 of 605-apeal-1691-19

¶22

Tukaram Kamble, Ashok Kamble, Vishwas Kamble, Rahul Kamble,
Kiram Kamble and Mahadev Kamble. Apart from that, the
statements of Vishwas Kamble, the Respondent No.2, Rahul
Kamble and Tukaram Kamble were also recorded U/s.164 of the
Cr.p.c.; wherein, they have reiterated the same allegations, as
mentioned in the F.I.R.

¶23

6.Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that
the F.I.R. clearly spelt out the allegations under the Atrocities Act,
therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the Appellant.

¶24

7.I have considered these submissions. As rightly
submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant, there is
unexplained delay of about 12 days in lodging the F.I.R. The
Respondent No.2 and the aforementioned other witnesses had
reason to implicate the appellant, as, their friends were arrested in
connection with another offence and the Respondent No.2 and
others were holding the Appellant responsible for their arrest. The
Appellant had lodged an N.C. at around 4.36p.m. on 24/11/2019
and in the evening at around 7.11p.m. on 24/11/2019 this F.I.R. is

¶25

5 of 605-apeal-1691-19

¶26

lodged against the Appellant. Thus, in this background, there is
scope to believe that the Appellant could have been falsely
implicated. However, this will have to be ultimately decided during
trial. At this stage, there is a possibility of false implication.
Therefore, the Appellant deserves to be granted protection of
anticipatory bail. The alleged offence is dated 12/11/2019. More
than three years have already passed. In any case, the Appellant’s
custody at this stage will not serve any purpose. Since there is a
possibility of false implication; there is a possibility that the
offence under the Atrocities Act is deliberately invoked to implicate
the appellant falsely. Considering all these aspects, the Appellant
deserves protection of anticipatory bail order. It is made clear that,
all these observations are made only for the purpose of deciding
this Appeal, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of these
observations at the stage of trial.

¶27

8.Hence, the following order:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

i)In the event of his arrest, in connection with
C.R.No.97 of 2019 registered with Kale police

¶30

6 of 605-apeal-1691-19

¶31

station, Kolhapur, the Appellant is directed to be
released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in the
sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties in the
like amount.

¶32

ii)The Appeal is disposed of.

¶33

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Namdev @ Shrikant Pandurang Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdev @ Shrikant Pandurang Patil v. the 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

Vishnumurti Venkatnarsayya Bairi Vs State of Maharashtra

Faizal a Wahid Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Raju Harishchandra Longale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Baban Bagal Vs State of Maharashtra

Baliram Dagdu Bhokare Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Surendra Govind Nemivant Vs Sharmishta R. Deshpande