Allowed

Sachin Mukund Taware and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2023APEAL/978/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench allowed criminal appeal challenging an order refusing anticipatory bail. Court found elements of offences under Atrocities Act absent as witnesses did not testify to caste abuse. Held doubtful that provisions of Atrocities Act were attracted.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed. Appellants directed to be released on bail on execution of P.R. bond with sureties.

Sachin Mukund Taware and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

7.apeal-978-19.odt

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.978 OF 2019

¶5

Sachin Mukund Taware
and others ….. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
and another .... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sachin H. Deokar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Dr. Vishal Hire, SDPO, Karmala Police Station (IO) is present.

¶7

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶8

DATE : 09th JANUARY, 2023

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.The appellants have challenged the order dated

¶11

9.7.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barshi in
Criminal Bail Application No.470/2019. In effect, they are

¶12

praying for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.
No.411/2019 dated 22.6.2019 registered at Karmala police

¶13

station, Solapur under Sections 323, 504, 506, 507 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) 1 of 5

¶14

Deshmane(PS)

¶15

: 2 : 7.apeal-978-19.odt

¶16

(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Atrocities Act’).

¶17

2.Heard Shri Sachin Deokar, learned counsel for

¶18

the appellants and Shri S.R. Agarkar, learned APP for the
respondent No.1-State.

¶19

3.The office note shows that the respondent No.2
is duly served. The respondent No.2 has not made any
arrangement for representation before the Court. Therefore,
I am deciding this appeal finally.

¶20

4.The FIR is lodged by the respondent No.2. He
has stated that on 21.6.2019, he had gone to the house of
one Parmeshwar with his friend for dinner in a religious
function. While the guests were taking dinner, all the
appellants came there. It is alleged that the appellant Sachin
abused the respondent No.2 with reference to his caste. The
other appellants also joined him and started assaulting the
respondent No.2. They threatened him and they went away.
On this basis, the FIR is lodged.

¶21

2 of 5

¶22

: 3 : 7.apeal-978-19.odt

¶23

5.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted

¶24

that the offence is not true. The appellant No.1’s wife had
lodged her own FIR against the respondent No.2 in respect
of the incident dated 21.6.2019, which had taken place in
her house. The respondent No.2 had committed the offence
attracting the provisions of Section 354 and 354A of IPC and

¶25

that FIR was lodged vide C.R. No.413/2019 at Karmala
Police Station, Solapur.

¶26

6.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that to avoid getting arrested in that complaint, the
respondent No.2 went to the police station and made these
false allegations before the appellant’s wife could reach the
police station.

¶27

7.Learned APP produced the investigation papers
before the Court. The investigation papers include the
statements of witnesses Shantaram Godage, Vasudeo
Sarade, Narayan Sarde and Rahul Ghanwat. All these eye
witnesses have spoken about the scuffle between the
respondent No.2 on one hand and the appellant on the other.

¶28

3 of 5

¶29

: 4 : 7.apeal-978-19.odt

¶30

However, they specifically stated that they had not heard any
abuses with reference to caste hurled at the respondent
No.2. The injury certificate shows that there were minor
injuries in the nature of blunt trauma suffered by the
respondent No.2. The injuries were possible during scuffle.
However, the question remains whether the offences under
the Atrocities Act are made out.

¶31

8.The statements of the eye witnesses suggest that

¶32

the elements of offences under the Atrocities Act were
absent. The ingredients of those offences under the
Atrocities Act are not clearly made out. It is extremely
doubtful whether the provisions of the Atrocities Act are
attracted. The appeal is pending since 2019. Therefore, in
such circumstances, at this stage, the appellants can be
protected by an order of anticipatory bail.

¶33

9.Hence, the following order :

¶34

:: O R D E R ::

¶35

i.The appeal is allowed.

¶36

ii. In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.

¶37

4 of 5

¶38

: 5 : 7.apeal-978-19.odt

¶39

No.411/2019 registered at Karmala police station,
Solapur, the appellants are directed to be released
on bail on their executing P.R. bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)
with one or two sureties each in the like amount.

¶40

iii. Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2023.01.11 12:59:53 +0530 Deshmane (PS)

¶42

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶43

5 of 5

Sachin Mukund Taware and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Mukund Taware 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

Parashuram @ Prashant Hariba Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yogesh Prakash Bhole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manoj Shankar Naik Vs State of Maharashtra

Sarfraj@ Iqbal Faridulla Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Farid Shaikh @ Firoz Shaikh S/O. Mohd. Ahmed Shaikh @ Yusuf Vs the State of Maharashtra

Najar Mohammad Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra