Dismissed

Ratankumar Narayan Pandagale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Apr 2024APEAL/133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed under section 14A of the SC/ST Act seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondents No. 3 to 5. The Court found no merit due to lack of necessity for detention post-charge sheet and discrepancies in caste allegations.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to respondents No. 3 to 5 not cancelled; appeal dismissed.

Ratankumar Narayan Pandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:8454

¶2

{1}

¶3

933-APEAL-133-2024

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2024

¶6

Ratankumar Narayan Pandagale ….Appellant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra And Others …..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Nitin Trimbak Tribhuwan, Advocate for Appellant Mr. S.R. Wakle ,APP for State Mr. A.K. Shingare h/f Mr. K.F. Shingare, Advocate for respondent No. 3 to 5.

¶10

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶11

DATE : 23^rd APRIL, 2024

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

By this appeal filed under section 14A of Scheduled

¶14

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, appellant seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondents No. 3 to 5 in Bail Application No. 98/2024.

¶15

Appellant lodged FIR on 09.01.2024 with Harsul Police Station, which is registered at C.R. No. 8/2024, under sections 307, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 427, 504, 506 of IPC and under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(g) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶16

Bhagyawant Punde

¶17

{2} 933-APEAL-133-2024

¶18

Pursuant to registration of crime, respondents No. 3 to 5 filed Bail Application No. 98/2024, under section 438 of Cr.P.C.. Learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail to respondents No. 3 to 5. Hence, the present appeal.

¶19

Heard learned advocate for appellant, learned APP for State and learned advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5. Perused the record.

¶20

Charge sheet in the present crime is filed on 14.03.2024 and case is numbered as Special Case No. 111/2024. On going through the injury certificate it appears that informant has suffered simple injury on head and vertex area. In the FIR there are no allegations of abuses hurled in the name of caste. In a statement of son of informant recorded two days after lodging of FIR, he has alleged that accused abused in the name of caste. Prima facie, there appears discrepancies in the allegations made in the FIR and allegations made by son of informant.

¶21

Considering the fact charge sheet is filed in the present crime, pre-trial custodial detention of respondents No. 3

¶22

Bhagyawant Punde

¶23

{3} 933-APEAL-133-2024

¶24

to 5 is not necessary. Hence, bail granted to them is not liable to be cancelled in the facts of the present case. Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶25

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶26

Bhagyawant Punde

Ratankumar Narayan Pandagale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratankumar Narayan Pandagale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Gotya @ Dnyaneshwar Shankar Bidve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prakash Murlidhar Choudhari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Goraksh Vishwanath Sangale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Taurus Auto Dealers Pvt.Ltd C/O Director Rajiv Malviya Vs Y v Z Motors Pvt. Ltd. G.P.A. Holders Mahesh Vinod Zaweri

Lalit Satyanarayan Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vasant Vishwas Patil Nerpagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another