Order Below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Appln. No. 492/2022

( CNR No. MHNS­010019042022 )

Ravi Sarjerao Jadhav Vs. State

Heard:

Ld. Adv. Mr. R. D. Avhad for the applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle for the State.

1] Perused the say filed by the complainant. I. O. present.

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.

Applicant is 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. Previous bail application of the applicant was rejected primarily on the ground that investigation is in progress and charge­sheet is yet to be filed. Now, there is change in circumstances.

Material part of the investigation is over and charge­sheet is about to be filed. None of the sections leveled against the applicant stipulate a sentence of more than 7 years imprisonment. Applicant is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Police protection is already been granted to the complainant.

3] In order to buttress his contentions further, he has relied on the following citations :

(i) An unreported judgment dated 16th January, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2012 (Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi V/s. The State of U. P. & Anr.) of the Apex Court wherein bail was granted to a “habitual offender” with dozens of pending criminal cases against him.

(ii) 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. In the case at hand also, there is admittedly an ongoing property dispute between the parties.

(iii) 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. (iv) Laxman Irappa Hatti And Suresh V/s. The State Maharashtra, 2004 Cri.L.J. 3802 wherein completion of investigation was considered as change in circumstance.

4] Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has opposed the bail application on the ground that there is prima­facie case against the applicant. He is a habitual offender. 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 are made out. There is no change in circumstance after the rejection of the previous bail application. If the applicant is released on bail, there are chances of threatening and tampering the prosecution witnesses.

5] Ld. Adv. for the complainant has submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, there are chances of his threatening prosecution witnesses. Complainant has also filed a complaint with the Social Welfare Board against the applicant. He has also relied on the citation in the case of Ganesh Raj V/s.
The State of Rajasthan and ors. 2005 Cri.L.J. 2086 wherein it has been held that successive anticipatory bail applications should not be entertained.

6] I. O. has informed the Court that material part of the investigation is over and charge­sheet is about to be filed. Citation in the case of Ganesh (Supra) is not applicable to the present case since this is a regular bail application. Previous bail application of the applicant was rejected almost one month
prior. In view of the statement of the I. O. in open Court that no further investigation needs to be carried out in the present offence coupled with the security provided by the I. O. to the complainant and the readiness and willingness of the applicant to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by the Court, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose will be served by keeping the applicant behind bars. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to allow the application subject to the following terms and conditions.

ORDER
1] Application is hereby allowed.

2] Applicant Ravi Sarjerao Jadhav be released on bail by executing P.R. and S.B. of ₹30,000/­ with one or two local sureties of like amount.

3] Applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of accusation, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

4] Applicant shall not commit any offence and shall attend all dates of hearing after the filing of charge­sheet.

5] Applicant is duty bound to inform the I.O. and the court about his change of address, if any.

6] Applicant shall furnish residence and ID proof of two blood relatives to the I.O.

7] Applicant shall attend all dates of hearing after the filing of the charge­sheet.

MRIDULA BHATIA Nashik 26/04/2022 Digitally signed by MRIDULA BHATIA Date: 2022.04.27 12:23:39 +0530 Mridula Bhatia District Judge ­ 2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.