Allowed¶31

Pavan Vitthal Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Apr 2025APEAL/168/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest protection; anticipatory bail; abetment/suicide of sugarcane cutter; casteist abuse; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Ss.3(1)(r), 3(2), 3(v), 3(2)(v); Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita Ss.108, 115(2), 352; Crime No.44 of 2025 Sirsala Police Station District Beed; Special Judge order dated 04.03.2025 quashed; ad-interim protection 13.03.2025 confirmed; Bombay HC Aurangabad; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2025; neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:11687.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge quashed and set aside; ad-interim order dated 13.03.2025 stands confirmed; conditions imposed in that order to be adhered to till filing of the charge sheet. ¶31

Pavan Vitthal Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to pre-arrest protection in Crime No.44 of 2025 (Sirsala Police Station, District Beed), i.e., whether the Special Judge's rejection of such protection deserves interference. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The learned Special Judge did not deal with the aspect of prima facie absence of a case under the Atrocities Act; the observations in paragraph No.10 of the impugned order are vulnerable, rendering the impugned order liable to be quashed.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The statements of witnesses Dinesh, Bayadabai and Pooja and other material shown by the respondents are not sufficient to draw an inference that the alleged harassment or torture was of such a degree or magnitude so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide, leaving him no alternative; the Court reiterated its observations recorded in paragraph No.4 of its order dated 13.03.2025.

¶23

Key takeaways

The first information report does not disclose material particulars about the alleged casteist abuses, and no timely complaint was filed either by the deceased or any of his relatives regarding such abuses.ratio¶24
Prima facie, no case is made out against the appellant under the provisions of the Atrocities Act; the appellant, being a contractor who engaged and paid the deceased, could at most have expected discharge of work.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2025 (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench; Shailesh P. Brahme, J.; decided 23.04.2025) - Pre-arrest protection - Crime No.44 of 2025, Sirsala Police Station, District Beed, under Sections 108, 115(2), 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2), 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Deceased Avinash, engaged by the appellant-contractor as a sugarcane cutter, was found hanging in an agricultural field; the informant, his mother, alleged harassment by the appellant drove him to suicide, with caste-based abuse. Held: statements of witnesses (Dinesh, Bayadabai, Pooja) and other material insufficient to infer harassment/torture of such degree or magnitude as to drive the deceased to suicide leaving him no alternative; the FIR did not disclose material particulars of the casteist abuses and no timely complaint was filed; prima facie no case made out under the Atrocities Act; the Special Judge had failed to consider this aspect and his observations in paragraph No.10 were vulnerable. Appeal allowed; order dated 04.03.2025 quashed; ad-interim order dated 13.03.2025 confirmed, conditions to operate till filing of charge sheet.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:11687

¶2

1 932-Cri.Appeal.168-25.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

932 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2025

¶5

PAVAN VITTHAL PAWAR

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Salunke Sudarshan J. APP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. M. Ganachari. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Subhash S. Nade.

¶9

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 23.04.2025

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel Mr. Nade tenders on record affidavit-in-

¶13

reply.

¶14

This appeal is directed against the rejection of pre-arrest protection to the appellant in furtherance of offence bearing Crime No.44 of 2025, registered with Sirsala Police Station, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2), 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2), 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶15

932-Cri.Appeal.168-25.odt

¶16

¶17

This Court had granted ad-interim protection vide order dated 13.03.2025. There is no complaint of breach of conditions imposed by this Court.

¶18

Respondent No.3/informant is the mother of the deceased who learnt from daughter-in-law that deceased Avinash was found hanging in agricultural field. The cause to commit suicide was harassment at the instance of present appellant who happened to be the contractor who had engaged deceased as a sugarcane cutter.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is nothing on record to show that there was such a type of harassment so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. It has come on record that the deceased was addicted to liquor. He had disputes with his wife. In fact appellant had intermediary their disputes. Prima facie there is no material to show any intention on the part of the appellant so that deceased should commit suicide.

¶20

Learned APP produced on record relevant papers of investigation and adverts my attention to the statements of Dinesh, Bayadabai and Pooja. It is submitted that appellant was persistently torturing the deceased.

¶21

932-Cri.Appeal.168-25.odt

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that offence is serious in nature. He would advert my attention to Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegations levelled against the appellant prima facie establishes scheduled offences. Appellant is not entitled to further protection.

¶23

I have gone through the first information report as well as statements of the witnesses referred by learned APP. I reiterate my observations which were recorded in paragraph No.4 of order dated 13.03.2025. The statements of witnesses and other material which is shown by the respondent is not sufficient to draw inference that the alleged harassment or torture was of such a degree or magnitude so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide and there was no alternative left to him.

¶24

On previous occasion also, deceased was being abused on caste. First information report does not disclose material particulars about the casteist abuses. Timely complaint was not filed either by the deceased or any of his relatives when the appellant is alleged to have indulged into casteist abuses.

¶25

932-Cri.Appeal.168-25.odt

¶26

¶27

In all probabilities, if the appellant was a contractor then

¶28

he might be expecting the deceased to discharge the work because in lieu of that the deceased was being paid. In that view of the matter, prima facie I do not find that case is made out under the provisions of Atrocities Act. Learned Special Judge did not deal with this aspect of the matter and observations in paragraph No.10 are vulnerable. I find that impugned order is liable to be quashed. I, therefore, pass following order :

¶29

ORDER

¶30