Allowed

Rajendra Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Aug 2024ABA/2219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by two applicants accused of outraging modesty during a grampanchayat meeting. Court noted eleven-day delay in FIR registration and that a prior cross-FIR existed, indicating counterblast; allegations against one applicant were only shouting and gestures. Both applications allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants to be released on bail on PR bonds of ₹25,000 each with sureties if arrested in FIR No.0267/2024, subject to cooperation and non-tampering conditions.

Rajendra Shinde vs State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904 & 905_ABA_2219 &2220_24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2219 OF 2024

¶3

Rajendra Shinde	… Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATIO	… Respondent N NO. 2220 OF 2024
Nilesh Laxman Mengade	… Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra	… Respondent

¶4

Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi a/w. Ms. Pravada Raut for applicants in both the applications.

¶5

Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, APP for respondent-State in ABA/2219/2024. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for respondent-State in ABA/2220/2024.

¶6

Mr. Sachin Balasaheb Shinde, ASI, Paud Police Station, District Pune Rural.

¶7

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 27^th AUGUST, 2024

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. These two applications are filed by a gramsevak and a member of grampanchayat of which the informant is the sarpanch. The offences registered against the two accused persons i.e. the applicants are in terms of FIR No.0267 of 2024 dated 22.06.2024 registered at Paud Police Station, District Pune Rural for offences under Sections 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Except offence under Section 354 of the IPC, the other offences are bailable.

¶10

The statement of the informant, which led to registration of FIR shows that on 11.06.2024, during the meeting of grampanchayat, certain heated exchanges took place in the backdrop of the allegations made against the

¶11

1/4

¶12

904 & 905_ABA_2219 &2220_24.doc

¶13

husband of the informant, who was the sarpanch until the year 2023. It is alleged that the applicant Rajendra Shinde, who is gramsevak, not only made gestures during the course of meeting but subsequent thereto, in his chamber, he placed his hand over the shoulder of the informant, thereby allegedly outraging her modesty. It is also stated that applicant Nilesh Laxman Mengade, who is member of grampanchayat, also indulged in shouting and gestures which gave rise to registration of FIR.

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a case of cross-FIRs and that an FIR bearing No.0265 dated 2024 registered prior in point of time on 19.06.2024, was at the behest of the applicant Rajendra Shinde, wherein the husband of the informant herein is the sole accused person and the said FIR also concerns the said incident dated 11.06.2024, during the meeting of grampanchayat. It is submitted that although the applicant Rajendra Shinde had approached the police authorities immediately after the incident, the FIR was actually registered only on 19.06.2024. In that light, it is submitted that the subject FIR is a counterblast and an after-thought, wherein allegations have been deliberately added, so as to cause registration of offence under Section 354 of the IPC, which is a non-bailable offence. It is submitted that the applicants are well-rooted in the society and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation and therefore, this Court may consider allowing the present application.

¶15

The learned APPs appearing in these applications opposed the prayers for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the statement of informant describes in detail the role of the applicant accused persons. It is submitted that there are other statements on record and that they corroborate with the version of the informant.

¶16

2/4

¶17

904 & 905_ABA_2219 &2220_24.doc

¶18

This Court finds that in the first place, FIR for an incident that occurred on 11.06.2024, has been registered in the present case after 11 days i.e. on 22.06.2024. Prima facie, there does not appear to be a cogent explanation for delay of 11 days for registration of FIR.

¶19

It is also relevant that in respect of the very same incident, an FIR was registered prior in point of time at the behest of applicant Rajendra Shinde, wherein the husband of the informant is the sole accused person. In that sense, it appears that the subject FIR is an after-thought and can be said to be a counterblast.

¶20

Apart from this, insofar as the applicant Nilesh Laxman Mengade is concerned, who is a member of grampanchayat, the only allegation is that he raised his voice and made some gestures during the course of meeting of grampanchayat. Such allegations cannot be said to be giving rise to offence under Section 354 of the IPC and hence, the said applicant has made out a case in his favour.

¶21

As regards the applicant Rajendra Shinde, the allegation against him during the course of the meeting, appears to be identical to the allegation made against Nilesh Laxman Mengade. But, there is a further allegation made against the applicant Rajendra Shinde, to the effect that when the informant visited his chamber on the same day at about 03:40 p.m., the applicant Rajendra Shinde allegedly placed his hand over the left shoulder of the informant, thereby allegedly outraging her modesty. Considering the fact that the subject FIR has been registered, after Rajendra Shinde had already caused registration of FIR against the husband of informant and also taking into consideration the fact that allegations have been made in the backdrop

¶22

3/4

¶23

904 & 905_ABA_2219 &2220_24.doc

¶24

of heated exchanges that took place in the grampanchayat meeting on 11.06.2024, the possibility of exaggeration cannot be ruled out and hence, applicant Rajendra Shinde has also made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶25

In view of the above, the applications are allowed in the following terms:

¶26

(i) In the event the applicants are arrested in connection with FIR No.0267 of 2024 dated 22.06.2024 registered at Paud Police Station, District Pune Rural, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bonds of ₹ 25,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶27

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when the Investigating Officer calls upon them to remain present;

¶28

(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case;

¶29

(iv) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial court.

¶30

In the event, the applicants violate any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶31

It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶32

The applications stand disposed of.

¶33

(MANISH PITALE, J)

¶34

4/4

¶35

Priya Kambli

Rajendra Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

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

Jayashri Ramachandra Sawant Vs Raghukul Education Society English Medium School through Mrs. Chandralekha Mahendra Ghadge

Mary Elizabeth Lobo vs John Joseph Alias Palakunnath Joseph John Deceased

Shridhar Charuddata Phadtare vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Khadi and Village Industries Commission vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Trademark Registry

Newasrao Bhikaji Adbale vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Kishor Vasudeo Gidwani vs Pushpa Vasudev Gidwani