Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-

1. Heard. Admit. The matters are taken up for its finality on merit with consent of both the sides.

2. These appeals are directed against impugned Order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail to the appellants in Crime No. 335 of 2019 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, under Sections 354, 323, 447 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under 3 921-CriAl-1053-19+2 Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as "Act of 1989"). The appellants-accused preferred present appeals by invoking remedy under Section 14-A(2) of Act of 1989.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that the appellants-accused are innocent of the charges pitted against them. They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case to wreak vengeance on account of land dispute. According to learned counsel, allegations made in the FIR are not sufficient to constitute the offence under the Act of 1989. Therefore, statutory bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989 would not be made applicable to preclude the appellants for availing the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in this case. The learned counsel contends that the appellants purchased the contentious land Gut No. 101 from the father of first informant for consideration by executing registered sale-deed. The first informant or his family members have no any concerned with it. The learned counsel drawn attention of this Court towards the document of civil 5 921-CriAl-1053-19+2 litigation bearing RCS No. 20 of 2019 pending between first informant and appellants. The civil litigation was preferred for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the appellants and their family members in respect of land Gut No. 101 located at village Kamtha, District Osmanabad. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that provisions of Section 3(1)(i)(ii) of the Act of 1989 are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel submits that due to continuous threat on the part of first informant for implicating the appellants- accused by making false accusation under Atrocities Act, the appellants preferred to file complaints-applications against first- informant and others to the concerned Police Station. But, taking disadvantage of situation, the first informant filed the present FIR on false accusation. Therefore, there is no any impediment to entertain the applications for relief of pre-arrest bail filed on behalf of appellants. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no any recovery nor custodial interrogation of the appellants is necessary for the sake of investigation. The learned counsel prays that impugned order of rejecting applications for bail by the learned trial Court be set aside and allow the present appeals. He relied upon the judgments in Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2018 (Kiran S/o Madhukar Ingle Versus State of Maharashtra and another), Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2019 (Smt. Dharmishtha Vinodkumar Bafna Versus State of Maharashtra), Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2019 (Nitin Sampatrao Maske and another Versus The State of 6 921-CriAl-1053-19+2 Maharashtra and another), Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2019 (Udhav S/o Gyanoba Budhwant and another Versus The State of Maharashtra and another), Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2019 (Jairam Shankarrao Tale and another Versus The State of Maharashtra and connected matter), Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2019 (Ratnakala Martandrao Mohite Versus The State of Maharashtra and connected matters), Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2018 (Deepak Tukaram Sanas Versus The State of Maharashtra and another), Criminal Appeal No. 1329 of 2018 (Kalidas @ Amol Baban Babar and others Versus The State of Maharashtra and another), Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2018 of 2019 (Sachin Dinkar Sable Versus The State of Maharashtra) and Shashikant Ramhari Tambe and others Versus The State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 BCI 418.

- Ranjit S/o Balbhim Todkari and Aappa @ Digambar S/o Bhaskar Joshi to arrive at the conclusion that allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution constitute offence under the Act of 1989 against them. Therefore, there is no impediment to entertain the applications filed on their behalf under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to admit them on pre-arrest bail in the present crime.

14. It is true that, there are allegations under Sections 323, 447 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC against appellants- Ranjit S/o 13 921-CriAl-1053-19+2 Balbhim Todkari and Aappa @ Digambar S/o Bhaskar Joshi, but, all these offences are bailable in nature, and therefore, it would not justifiable to rebuff the relief of pre-arrest bail as prayed in their favour. There is no any recovery from the appellants for the sake investigation nor custodial interrogation is necessary. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to allow the Bail Applications filed on behalf of these two appellants before the learned trial Court. However, in view of nature of the offence and gravity of allegations nurtured against appellant - Parmeshwar Sitaram Rathod, the statutory embargo as prescribed under Sections 18 and 18-A of Act of 1989 does not permit the Court of law to exercise discretion for grant of relief of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the appellant Parmeshwar. As referred above, there are specific allegations of molestation of victim-first informant of the crime by the appellant - Parmeshwar, which would constitute the Scheduled offence under Section 3(1)(w)(i) r/w. Section 3(2)(va) of Act of 1989, against him. Therefore, in view of statutory bar under Section 18 of Act of 1989, it is not legally permissible to entertain the Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant- Parmeshwar. Learned trial Court rightly appreciated the factual aspect of the matter on record and rejected his application for pre-arrest bail. However, in regard to other appellants, namely, Ranjit and Aappa @ Digambar, it appears that learned trial Court did not consider the factual aspects of the matter in it's proper perspective. It is per-posterious and 14 921-CriAl-1053-19+2 incomprehensible to fasten the liability of offence committed by appellant-accused Parmeshwar on the co-accused by taking recourse of Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, when basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) Act of 1989 are not attributing to the appellants - Ranjit S/o Balbhim Todkari and Aappa @ Digambar S/o Bhaskar Joshi, there is no impediment to entertain their applications filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge them on pre-arrest bail. As discussed above, considering the nature of offence and gravity of allegation, these applications for anticipatory bail deserve to be allowed.

15. In the above premise, Criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 2019 stands rejected. The impugned order of rejecting pre-arrest bail of appellant - Parmeshwar Sitaram Rathod, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Criminal Bail Application No. 368 of 2019, dated 11-10-2019, is made confirmed and absolute.

16. The Criminal Appeals No. 1054 and 1055 of 2019 of appellants - Ranjit Balbhim Todkar and Aappa @ Digambar S/o Bhaskar Joshi, are hereby allowed. The impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Criminal Bail Applications No. 370 and 369 of 2019, dated 11-10-2019, rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail are hereby quashed and set aside. The applications of applicants-appellants, namely, Ranjit Balbhim Todkar and Aappa @ Digambar S/o Bhaskar Joshi, filed under Section 438 15 921-CriAl-1053-19+2 of Cr.P.C. for their pre-arrest bail before learned Sessions Court, are hereby granted. The appellants, namely, Ranjit Balbhim Todkar and Aappa @ Digambar S/o Bhaskar Joshi, be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 335 of 2019 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 447 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on their furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount each. It is stipulated that the appellants-applicants shall not indulge, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The appellants-applicants shall attend the Police Station Tuljapur, Tahsil Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, on every Sunday, in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and co-operate the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime. Inform the concerned Investigating Officer, accordingly.