Order Below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Appln. No. 392/2022 ( CNR No. MHNS010013502022 )
Pappu Mangalsingh Bhond @ Katari and 2 others Vs. State Heard:
Ld. Adv. Mr. R. D. Avhad for the applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle for the State.
Perused the say filed by the complainant.
1] This is an application by accused under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code in Crime No.88/2022 registered at Panchavati Police Station, Nashik for the offence under Sections 354, 394, 452, 427, 323, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.), Secs. 3(1)(p), 3(2)(a)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act) and 4/25 of the Arms Act. It is the case of prosecution in brief that the accused persons entered the house of the complainant and assaulted her brotherinlaw and husband due to previous animosity. When she went for their rescue, they molested her and accused No. 3 gave her castebased abuses. They also lifted her cash of Rs.7800/ and golden beeds and locket which fell down from her person during the commotion.
2] Ld. Adv. for the applicant has submitted that admittedly, the offence took place inside the house of the complainant and therefore FIR is lodged under section 452 of I.P.C. For the provisions of the Atrocities Act to be applicable, castebased abuse or insult needs to be made in a public place.
Since a house is not a public place, therefore, provisions of the Atrocities Act will primafacie not be applicable. Secondly, even as per the case of the prosecution, there is previous animosity and disputes interse between the parties. In fact, there is admittedly a previous FIR by the police about the same incident against the complainant’s husband and two other persons.
Thirdly, the allegation of mouthing castebased abuses is only against accused No. 3 who himself belongs to a Scheduled Caste and is behind bars. Fourthly, provisions of Sec. 392 of the I.P.C.
will not be applicable because the FIR does not state that the accused robbed the complainant of cash and gold. The FIR categorically states that during the commotion, cash and gold fell from the person of the complainant and was picked up by the accused. Applicants are ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Applicant No. 1 has been acquitted in seven of the offences. Copies of the judgments of his acquittal have been filed on record.
3] In order to buttress his contentions further, he has relied on the following citations :
(i) Hitesh Verma V/s. The State of Uttarakhand Laws (SC) 20201117.
In this matter, it was held by the Apex Court that since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
..3.. Cri. Bail Appln. No. 392/2022.
Order Below Exh. 1.
In the case at hand also, there is admittedly an ongoing property dispute between the parties.
(ii) Dada @ Anil S/o. Navnath Murkute V/s. The State of Maharashtra LAWS (BOM) 2020 8 26. In this matter (with similar facts), anticipatory bail was given to the applicant.
4] Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has opposed the bail application on the ground that there is primafacie case against the applicants who are the prime accused. They are habitual offenders with as many as 10 offences against accused No. 1 and 3 and 2 offences against accused No. 2 and 3 respectively. Even if the Court comes to the conclusion that offences under the Atrocities Act and under Sec. 394 of the I.P.C. are not primafacie made out, even then, offences under the other Sections stand. Investigation is in progress and chargesheet is yet to be filed. If the applicants are released on bail, there are chances of threatening and tampering the prosecution witnesses.
5] Perusal of the case diary indicates prima facie case against the applicants under all the Sections except the Atrocities Act and Sec. 394 of the I.P.C. Citations in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra), Kiran (Supra) and Dada @ Anil (Supra) are squarely applicable to the present case as far as the allegation under the Atrocities Act is concerned and therefore anticipatory bail application of accused Amit Vasant Pawar @ Chhotu has been allowed by this Court. However, as far as the applicants in this bail application are concerned, they are the prime accused and there are other allegations against them.
They are habitual offenders with an offence under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. against accused No. 1 and an offence under Sec. 307 of the I.P.C. against accused No. 2 and 3. Investigation is in progress and chargesheet is yet to be filed. Therefore, apprehension of the Ld. A.P.P. that if the applicants are released on bail, there are chances of tampering with prosecution witnesses is wellfounded. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to reject the application.
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
Digitally signed by MRIDULA MRIDULA BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2022.04.05 10:15:16 +0530 Nashik Mridula Bhatia 04/04/2022 District Judge 2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.