Allowed

Chakradhar Laxman Kaygude v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2023IA/199/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim bail application, the High Court granted bail to an appellant charged with offenses under IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court noted the short sentence, the long delay of over twelve years, and the existence of a pending civil dispute as factors in favor of the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to be released on bail during pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2020.

Chakradhar Laxman Kaygude Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

13.ia-199-2020.odt

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2020
IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.62 OF 2020

¶6

Chakradhar Laxman Kaygude ….. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Pranav Bhoite, Advocate i/b. Devidas J. Jadhav, for the
Applicant.

¶8

Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Rupesh A. Zade, Advocate a/w. Priyanka Gupta, for the
Respondent No.2.

¶9

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

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1.This is an application for bail pending final

¶12

disposal of Criminal Appeal No.62/2020 preferred by the
applicant.

¶13

2.The applicant was convicted for commission of

¶14

offence punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of IPC

¶15

and under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the

¶16

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

Deshmane(PS)

¶19

: 2 : 13.ia-199-2020.odt

¶20

short, ‘Atrocities Act’). The major sentence imposed on him

¶21

was for three years besides imposition of fine.

¶22

3.The prosecution case is that on 2.10.2013 at 9.30
a.m., when the respondent No.2 was proceeding towards her

¶23

field, the appellant stopped her. He abused her with
reference to caste and tore her blouse. He also beat her. On
this basis, the FIR was lodged.

¶24

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
there was a civil dispute between the parties which has
travelled upto this Court by way of Second Appeal. Because
of this civil dispute in respect of an area adjoining the
agricultural field, this false case is lodged against the
applicant. He submitted that the falsity of the prosecution
case is clear from the fact that PW-3 was examined as an eye
witness. She had not stated about the incident in her police
statement. Thus, she is a got up witness. He, therefore,
submitted that the applicant has a good case on merits.

¶25

5.He further submitted that the sentence awarded
is short and the matter is not likely to be decided within that

¶26

2 of 4

¶27

: 3 : 13.ia-199-2020.odt

¶28

period. He further submitted that the applicant was on bail
during trial and has not misused the same. Even after his
conviction, he was granted bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

6.Learned counsel for the respondent opposed this
application. He submitted that there is no reason to
disbelieve PW-1. He further submitted that there was one
more incident for which the different complaint was lodged
by PW-1. He, therefore, opposed grant of bail.

¶30

7.Learned APP also opposed this application, but,
she conceded that the sentence awarded is short.

¶31

8.I have considered these submissions. All the

¶32

points raised by learned counsel for the applicant will have
to be decided during final hearing stage of the appeal.
However, as rightly submitted by him, the sentence is short
and the appeal is not likely to be decided within that short
period. The applicant was granted bail even after his
conviction under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

9.There is history of civil dispute. The incident is
old which had taken place almost more than twelve years

¶34

3 of 4

¶35

: 4 : 13.ia-199-2020.odt

¶36

ago. In this view of the matter, the applicant can be granted

¶37

bail pending his appeal. Hence the following order :

¶38

:: O R D E R ::

¶39

i.During pendency and final disposal of Criminal

¶40

Appeal No.62/2020, the applicant 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.

¶41

ii.Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE

¶43

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2023.01.16 12:05:56 +0530

¶44

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶45

Deshmane (PS)

¶46

4 of 4

Chakradhar Laxman Kaygude v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakradhar Laxman Kaygude 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.

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