Bombay High Court
Gulabrao Marotrao Ulhe vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 8 August, 2018
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
0808APEAL193.18-Judgment 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRI. APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2018
APPELLANT :- Gulabrao Marotrao Ulhe, Aged about 58
years, Occupation - Agriculturist,
Resident of Saykheda (Bk.), Police
Station Wadgaon Jungle, District
Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- The State of Maharashtra, thr. Police
Station Officer, Police Station, Wadgaon
Jungle, District Yavatmal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.A.Choube, counsel for the appellant.
Mrs.G. Tiwari, APP for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 08.08.2018. O R A L J U D G M E N T
Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:41 :::
0808APEAL193.18-Judgment 2/8
2. This is an appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging order dated 12/02/2018 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal (Sessions Court), whereby application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the appellant was rejected.
3. An offence has been registered against the appellant as per FIR dated 23/01/2018 in Police Station Wadgaon (Jungle), District Yavatmal under sections 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 3 (1)(w)(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act). It is alleged by the complainant that on 23/01/2018, the appellant had accosted her and stated that she could not do anything to him despite the fact that he was acquitted of an offence in a proceeding in which the complainant had appeared as witness and thereafter, he abused her in the name of her caste. It was also claimed that he caught hold of her hand in order to outrage her modesty.
4. Mr. Choube, learned counsel appearing for the ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:41 ::: 0808APEAL193.18-Judgment 3/8 appellant, points out that there is a background to the aforesaid complaint and registration of FIR against the appellant. It is claimed that the same is a counter blast against the appellant because he had filed an application before the Collector pointing out that there were certain fabricated documents concerning Record of Rights prepared in the concerned office pertaining to Land Records, which also included document of Record of Rights pertaining to the complainant herein. On the basis of such an application, an order was passed on 05/01/2018 by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Yavatmal, directing that offences be registered against such persons in whose name fabricated land records have been found in the list, which included the name of the complainant herein. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this was the reason why a concocted story was created by the complainant as a counter blast on the basis of which the FIR dated 23/01/2018 was registered against the appellant.
5. It was further contended that in the present case the safeguards indicated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 (4) SCALE 661 were not ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:41 ::: 0808APEAL193.18-Judgment 4/8 followed, as no preliminary enquiry was conducted, much less by an officer of the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and no reasoned order had been passed for arresting the appellant. Reliance was placed on various paragraphs of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to point out that when prima facie it was found that the complaint pertaining to alleged offences under the Atrocities Act, was mala fide, anticipatory bail could be granted by the Court.
6. In this backdrop, it was pointed out that the impugned order dated 12/02/2018 passed by the Sessions Court does not take into consideration any of these aspects and that the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected only on the ground that bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act was attracted. It was contended that the aforesaid reason was unsustainable and that the instant appeal deserved to be allowed.
7. On the other hand, Mrs.Tiwari, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, submitted that the investigation was still under way and there was possibility of the ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:41 ::: 0808APEAL193.18-Judgment 5/8 appellant threatening the complainant. It was pointed out that the appellant was facing criminal prosecution in other cases also and that therefore, his antecedents were such that he did not deserve any relief from this Court.
8. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that although in one of the cases indicated on behalf of the respondent-State, he was charged with offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC, he was acquitted by the Trial Court. It was further pointed out that despite interim protection granted by this court by order dated 23/02/2018, there was no allegation of any wrong doing on his part and that the appellant was ready to abide by any conditions that this court may impose for grant of bail.
9. A perusal of the order dated 05/01/2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal, shows that a direction was given for registration of offence against various persons, including the complainant herein, pertaining to alleged fabrication of land records. The said order had been passed at the behest of the application submitted by the appellant. In this backdrop, prima ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:41 ::: 0808APEAL193.18-Judgment 6/8 facie it appears that the complaint lodged by the complainant herein could be a counter blast for the aforesaid action undertaken by the appellant, leading to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In any case, the complaint against the appellant had been lodged after the order dated 05/01/2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
10. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (supra) were followed in the present case. There is no material to show that an officer of the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police had passed an order for detention of the appellant or that such reasoned order was served on the appellant. Even otherwise, a prima facie case has been made out by the appellant to show that the present complaint could be in the nature of the counter blast. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court is unsustainable because the only ground given by the Sessions Court is the bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act. The Sessions Court has not taken into consideration the entire ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:41 ::: 0808APEAL193.18-Judgment 7/8 facts and circumstances of the present case. A prima facie case made out by the appellant was not even examined by the Sessions Court while passing the impugned order.
11. In the light of the above, the appeal stands allowed in the following terms.
(1) It is directed in the event of arrest of the appellant, in connection with FIR No.0017 of 2018 registered in Police Station Wadgaon (Jungle), District Yavatmal dated 23/01/2018, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with surety in the like amount.
(2) The appellant shall report to the Police Station Wadgaon (Jungle), District Yavatmal on Monday of every week, during pendency of the trial. (3) The appellant shall not threaten the witnesses, including the complainant in the present case and he shall not tamper with the evidence.
::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:41 :::
0808APEAL193.18-Judgment 8/8
(4) The appellant shall submit an undertaking of good
behaviour before the Sessions Court, during pendency of the trial.
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:41 :::