Allowed

Mrutunjay Parmatma Mishra v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2023APEAL/176/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge criminal appeal challenged an order rejecting an anticipatory bail application. The High Court examined investigation records and witness statements, finding no eyewitness attributed a role to the Appellant. It held there was no sufficient material to warrant custody under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act or for the other charges.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount upon arrest.

Mrutunjay Parmatma Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

05-APEAL-176-20.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.176 OF 2020

¶5

Mrutunjay Parmatma Mishra.... Appellant

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr..... Respondents

¶8

Mr. K. H. Giri a/w Dhinika Jain, Advocate for Appellant.

¶9

• Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 06th JANUARY, 2023

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. The office note shows that the Respondent No.2 is

¶13

served. Therefore I have heard this Appeal finally.

¶14

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2023.01.07 14:28:46 +0530

¶15

2. The Appellant has challenged the order dated
16/01/2020 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.48 of
2020. In effect the Appellant is seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No.259/2019 dated 18/12/2019 registered
at Kherwadi police station u/s 354(A), 323, 504, 506, 509 r/w

¶16

34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the

¶17

Nesarikar

¶18

2 / 5 05-APEAL-176-20.odt

¶19

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Atrocities Act’).

¶20

3. The FIR is lodged by the Respondent No.2. She has
described the dispute between her family and the family of one
Satyanarayan Pandey. The incident in question had taken place
on 16/12/219 at about 12.30 p.m. at Bandra. It is mentioned
that Satyanarayan’s wife met her and started quarreling with
her. She abused her and started assaulting her. It is alleged that
she was accompanied by one unknown person and he slapped
the Respondent No.2. There was scuffle between the Respondent
No.2 and Satyanarayan’s wife. During short time, Satyanarayan
came there and he assaulted the Respondent No.2 and he
outraged her modesty. He tore her clothes. The Respondent No.2
then called her husband. She went to hospital and then she
lodged the FIR.

¶21

4. Heard Mr. K. H. Giri, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.

¶22

3 / 5 05-APEAL-176-20.odt

¶23

5. Learned counsel for Appellant submitted that the
Appellant is wrongly implicated in this case. He has nothing to
do with the incident or the dispute between the two parties.
Apparently, the investigating agency’s case is that, the unknown
person mentioned in the FIR was none other than the Appellant.
However, there is no basis to reach such conclusion.

¶24

6. Learned APP produced the investigation papers before
me. According to him, at around the same time, there were
telephone calls exchanged between the Applicant and
Satyanarayan. It shows the Appellant’s complicity.

¶25

7. I have considered these submissions. The investigation
papers include an NC complaint lodged by the Respondent No.2
on 16/12/2019 itself with the same police station. In that
complaint, she has described the incident and it is mentioned
that Satyanarayan and the unknown person had come together
subsequently after the quarrel had taken place between the

¶26

4 / 5 05-APEAL-176-20.odt

¶27

Respondent No.2 and Satyanarayan’s wife. This description is
different from the FIR wherein it is mentioned that the said
unknown person was present with Satyanarayan’s wife right
from the inception of the offence. Apart from that, the
investigation papers include statement of various witnesses
namely Sayali Dharkar, Swati Dharkar, Usha Wankhede, Bhishan
Gami, Pratapsingh Rathod, Anmol Kori, Mohd. Hanif Shaikh.
However, none of these eyewitnesses has attributed any role to
any unknown person. All of them have described the fight
between the two ladies. The statement of Mohd. Hanif Shaikh
and Anmol Kori show that one unknown boy was present there
and was making phone calls. Besides that, no role is attributed
to that unknown person. All these factors show that there is a
strong possibility that the Appellant is implicated falsely. There is
no sufficient material against him requiring his custody. The bar
u/s 18 of the Atrocities Act does not apply because there is no
material to show that the Appellant has committed any offence
under the Atrocities Act.

¶28

5 / 5 05-APEAL-176-20.odt

¶29

8. Hence, the following order :

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

(i) The Appeal is allowed.

¶32

(ii) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.259/2019 dated 18/12/2019 registered at Kherwadi police station, the Appellant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶33

(iii)The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Mrutunjay Parmatma Mishra v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrutunjay Parmatma Mishra 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

Kumar Vishwanath Kusalkar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Shekhar Madhukar Khomane Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Mahesh Mahadev Bhosale and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jilani Badshaha Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sameer Shashikant Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

John Saver D'Souza Vs the State of Maharashtra