Santosh Dattaram Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶1

04-APEAL-270-21.odt

¶2

1 / 8

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.270 OF 2021

¶5

Santosh Dattaram Chavan & Ors..... Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr..... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Saurabh Butala Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

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

¶8

Ms. Gayatri Gokhale (Appointed) Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 11th JANUARY, 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The Appellants are challenging the Judgment and

¶12

Order dated 08/09/2020 passed by the Special Judge under the

¶13

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2023.01.12 16:50:33 +0530

¶14

SCST Act, Greater Mumbai, in Criminal Anticipatory Bail
Application No.884 of 2020. In effect, the Appellants are seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.244/2020 registered
at Navghar police station on 06/08/2020 u/s 324, 504, 506 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)(za)A of
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short ‘Atrocities Act’). The Appellant

¶15

Nesarikar

¶16

2 / 8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

¶17

Nos.1 and 2 are the husband and wife. The Appellant No.3 is
their daughter.

¶18

2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Butala, learned counsel for the
Appellants, Ms. Gayatri Gokhale, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2 and Mr. S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.

¶19

3. The FIR is lodged by the Respondent No.2. He has
stated that his family and the Appellant’s family were residing in
the neighbourhood. They were having some dispute about the
access road to the Respondent No.2’s house. There is reference
to some utterance in January 2020 with reference to caste. But
the main subject matter of this FIR is the incident dated
10/06/2020. The FIR mentions that, on that date, at about
02.00 p.m. there was some incident. Appellant No.2, alleged
that the Respondent No.2 had damaged her flower-pots. At
about 06.30 p.m. the Respondent No.2 was sitting outside his
house, again the Appellant No.2 started abusing. The
Respondent No.2 asked her to stop. It is alleged that the

¶20

3 / 8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

¶21

Appellant No.2 abused him with reference to his caste. In the
meantime, the other two Appellants came there. They also
abused him with reference to caste. It is alleged that the
Appellants assaulted the Respondent No.2 and his daughter with
stick. According to him he had gone to Navghar police station to
lodge a complaint. But since other Residents pacified him, he did
not lodge his FIR. In the meantime the Appellants had lodged
their FIR on 17/06/2020. It is further alleged that on
26/07/2020, the Appellant No.2 poured dirty water on the
Respondent No.2’s daughter. Therefore, finally he lodged his FIR.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that this
FIR is counterblast to the FIR lodged by the Appellant No.2. He
invited my attention to the NC complaint and the FIR registered
at the instance of the Appellant No.2. The NC was lodged
immediately on 10/06/2020 after the incident. It was lodged by
the Appellant No.2 against the Respondent No.2. After that, the
Appellant No.2 lodged an FIR vide C.R.No.126/2020 at Navghar
Police Station on 17/06/2020 u/s 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the

¶23

4 / 8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

¶24

Indian Penal Code. The FIR mentions the same incident, in
which the Appellant No.2 was assaulted and abused. After this
FIR, an NC was lodged by the Respondent No.2’s daughter on
18/06/2020 in respect of the same incident dated 10/06/2020.
In that NC, there was no reference to the abuses with reference
to caste. In any case that NC is lodged only against the Appellant
Nos.1 and 3. The FIR against the Appellants makes allegations
that the abuses were given by the Appellant No.2 but the NC is
not even lodged against the Appellant No.2.

¶25

5. After this NC a complaint was given on 18/06/2020
about the same incident dated 10/06/2020. As mentioned in the
FIR, this complaint was not pursued and it is mentioned that a
false FIR was lodged against the Respondent No.2. Ultimately he
lodged the FIR on 06/08/2020. Learned counsel for the
Appellants submitted that all this shows that the FIR is lodged as
an afterthought and a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the
Respondent No.2. The FIR shows that the Appellant No.2 had
suffered some injuries and there is absolutely no reference to

¶26

5 / 8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

¶27

such injuries to the Appellant No.2. In the FIR lodged against
her, which shows that the Respondent No.2 has suppressed the
important facts.

¶28

6. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for Respondent
No.2 opposed this application. They submitted that offence
under the Atrocities Act is made out and therefore the bar u/s
18 of the said Atrocities Act will operate and anticipatory cannot
be granted to the Appellants.

¶29

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted
that the FIR was not restricted to the incident dated 10/06/2020
but there was a reference to an incident dated 26/07/2020
when the Appellant No.2 had allegedly poured dirty water on
the Respondent No.2’s daughter.

¶30

8. Learned APP produced the investigation papers which
contained the statements of Joel, Mukesh Badgujar and Raju
Patil recorded respectively on 14/08/2020, 15/08/2020 and
20/08/2020. Joel was a chance witness and he has attributed

¶31

6 / 8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

¶32

abuses only to the Appellant No.3. The other witness Mukesh
Badgujar has not referred to the incident dated 10/06/2020.
Raju Patil has again attributed abuses only to the Appellant
No.3. However, all these statements are recorded much
belatedly in August 2020. They also do not make any reference
to the injuries suffered by the Appellant No.2. The investigation
shows that the Respondent No.2’s daughter had suffered one
abrasion on forearm and the Respondent No.2 has suffered
contusion and small swelling over the right leg.

¶33

9. I have considered these submissions. Apparently there
was a scuffle between the two groups in which both the parties
have suffered some injuries. The FIR against the Appellants does
not make any reference as to how the Appellant No.2 had
suffered injuries. The injury certificate shows that the Appellant
No.2 had suffered one abrasion on left side of the forehead of
the size 2 x 1 cm. There was one contusion over the left arm of
the size 4 x 2 cm and there was redness on the right forearm of
the size 3 x 2 cm. These injuries were caused during the same

¶34

7 / 8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

¶35

incident for which a separate FIR is lodged by the Appellant
No.2. Thus, the Respondent No.2 has suppressed some
important facts in his FIR.

¶36

10. This has to be seen in the background of the NC lodged
by the Respondent No.2’s daughter on 18/06/2020 about the
same incident. All these important allegations in the FIR
regarding the same incident are not mentioned in that particular
NC. The FIR itself was lodged belatedly on 06/08/2020. Though
there was some complaint made by the Respondent No.2 on
20/06/2020 even that first complaint to the police was made
after the NC dated 18/06/2020 was lodged by the Respondent
No.2’ daughter. Thus, there is scope to believe that the
allegations in the FIR are result of the grudge which the
Respondent No.2 was holding against the Appellants and there
is exaggeration about the important aspects. The Respondent
No.2 has suppressed the cause of injuries suffered by the
Appellant No.2. Therefore in this background, reasonable doubt
is created about the case of the Respondent No.2. Therefore it

¶37

8 / 8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

¶38

would not be fair to deny relief of anticipatory bail to the
Appellants. All these questions can be decided during the course
of the trial. It is made clear that all these observations are
restricted to passing of this order and these observations shall
not be used at any other stage.

¶39

11. Hence, the following order :

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

(i) The Appeal is allowed.

¶42

(ii) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.244/2020 registered at Navghar police station, the Appellants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each, with one or two sureties each, in the like amount.

¶43

(iii)The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶44

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Santosh Dattaram Chavan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Dattaram Chavan and Ors. 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

Janki Mahesh Chavla Vs State of Maharashtra

Snehal Singh Thakur Alias Snehal Sanjiv Singh and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Narayandas @ Narubhai @ Narendra Laxmidas Thakkar Vs State of Maharashtra

Vijaya Chandramohan Khot Vs State of Maharashtra

Omkar @ Bhukamp @ Bandya Anandrao Dabhade Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chakradhar Laxman Kaygude Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.