Bombay High Court
Ramkrishna Maroti Bangar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 10 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:3496
2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1028 OF 2024
1] Ramkrishna s/o Maroti Bangar
Age: 75 Years, Occ: Agri and Business
R/o: Patoda, Taluka Patoda
District: Beed
2] Vijaysingh @ Bala s/o Ramkrishna Bangar
Age: 38 years, Occ : Agri and Business
R/o: Patoda, Taluka Patoda
District: Beed
3] Satyabhamabai w/o Ramkrishna Bangar
Age: 70 years, Occ: Housewife and Business
R/o: Patoda, Taluka Patoda District Beed
4] Aabasaheb s/o Bhanudas Gopalghare
Age: 55 years, Occ: Service
R/o: Patoda, Taluka Patoda
District: Beed ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Beed Rural Police Station,
Beed Taluka and District Beed
2] Amol s/o Babasaheb Waghmare
Age: 29 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o: Andhapuri Ghat,
Taluka and District Beed,
At present in-front of Rashtrawadi
Karyalaya, Shivajinagar, Beed ... RESPONDENTS
1 of 17
(( 2 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms Rakshanda
Rajan Jaiswal i/b Mr. Praful Bachate, Advocate for the Appellants
Ms Chaitali Chaudhari - Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1 - State
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. V. R. Dhorde, a/w Mr. S. S.
Dudhane, Advocate for Respondent No.2
....
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
RESERVED ON : 03.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.02.2025
JUDGMENT :
–
1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, the learned Senior
counsel with Ms Rakshanda Rajan Jaiswal, instructed by Mr. Praful
Bachate, the learned counsel for the Appellants, the learned APP for
Respondent No.1 and Mr. R. N. Dhorde, the learned Senior counsel
instructed by Mr. V. R. Dhorde, along with Mr. S. S. Dudhane,
Advocate for Respondent No.2 / victim-informant.
2. By the present Appeal, the Appellants/accused have
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 read with Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 and take exception to the order dated 19.11.2024
passed by the learned Special Judge, (Atrocities), Beed, Below Exh.1
2 of 17
(( 3 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
in Criminal Bail Application No.1237 of 2024, whereby the prayer for
pre-arrest bail was declined in Crime No. 0394 of 2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 318(4), 351(2),
351(3), 352, 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)
(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. In a nutshell, it is the prosecution’s case that, on
11.11.2024, Respondent No.2/informant lodged an oral report with
Police Station (Rural), Beed alleging that, from the year 2005 till
2008, he was residing in Hutatma Deorao Magasvargiya Hostel,
Bhayala, run by Shri Ramkrishna Bangar, Appellant No.1. He knows
the appellant accused No.2 Vijaysingh @ Bala Ramkrishna Bangar
and Smt. Satyabhamabai w/o Ramkrishna Bangar, appellant/accused
No.3. He belongs to Scheduled Castes community. In the year 2012,
the accused No. 1 appointed him on temporary basis on the post of
Laboratory Assistant with Adarsh Kanishth Mahavidyalaya, Khalapuri.
At that time, he met accused No.1 Ramkrishna Bangar. Respondent
No.2 informant further alleged that, in the year 2018, accused No.1
to 3 obtained Rs.4,00,000/- from him, but, subsequently tortured
him by raising an additional demand of Rs.6,00,000/- and issued
3 of 17
(( 4 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
threats that if he fail to pay the said amount, he would be removed
from his job. It is further alleged that, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 never
paid him salary and whenever he asked for his salary, he was abused
on the basis of his caste. The Appellant No.4 is the Headmaster of a
school run by the accused Nos. 1 to 3.
4. On 10.11.2024 at about 9.00 a.m., he visited the house of
accused No.1 to 3 in village Patoda and requested the Appellant no. 1
for refund of money of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was paid by him to
secure the job in presence of accused No.3, Satyabhamabai Bangar
and accused No.4 Aabasaheb Bhanudas Gopalghare. But accused
No.1 Ramkrishna Bangar, abused him on the basis of his caste, saying
“rw ekrax lektkpk vkgsl] EkkaxV~;k rqyk d’kkyk ixkj ikfgts] ,drj rqyk QqdV uksdjh
fnyh vkgs] rw tj tkLr ‘kgk.ki.kk dsyk rj rqyk ukSdjho:u dk<qu Vkdq vkf.k rq>s iSls
lq/nk ijr nsr ukghr ” (you belongs to Matang community, why do you
need salary? If you act too smart, we will fire you from your job and
will not even pay you). Accused No.1 Ramkrishna Bangar, and his
staff members assaulted him and drove him out of the house.
Thereafter the accused No.4 Aabasaheb Gopalghare followed him and
convinced that he would talk with Accused No.1 about return of
money to him, hence, he waited at Patoda for considerable time, but
4 of 17
(( 5 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
there were no contact with Accused no. 4. Therefore, he gave phone
call to the accused No.4 but at that time, the accused No.4 issued him
life threat. Then he started to return by an Autorickshaw towards
Beed, but at about 8.30 p.m., he alighted from the Autorickshaw near
Ghule Petrol Pump. It further alleged that, at that time the accused
No.4 Aabasaheb Gopalghare and two other unknown persons came
there on motorcycle and took him beside the road and told him that,
how he dared to visit at the bungalow of accused No.1 and abused
him on his caste. The accused No.4 also told him that, the accused
No.1, 2 and 3 directed him to kill him with an intention that he
would not enter again at the bungalow of accused no. 1. The other
unknown two persons caught hold his hands-legs and laid down him
and accused No.4 poured petrol on this person from bottle and set
him on fire. Therefore, he sustained burn injuries to his both legs.
Due to screaming, the accused No.4 and other two unknown persons
fled away from the spot. Thereafter, some persons brought him at the
Government Hospital, Beed.
5. The Appellants/accused filed Criminal Bail Application
No.1237 of 2024 under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 before the learned Special Court, Beed and prayed for
5 of 17
(( 6 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
anticipatory bail in Crime No.0394 of 2024. However, on 19.11.2024,
the learned Special Court under the Atrocities Act, passed the
impugned order and rejected said application.
6. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Senior counsel for the
Appellants, vehemently canvassed that, there is political rivalry
between Appellant No.1 and the Guardian Minister of Beed District.
Therefore, to prevent Appellant No.1 from contesting the
Parliamentary and State Legislative Assembly Elections of 2024,
various crimes have been registered against the appellants at the
instance of the Guardian Minister which are as under:
(1) Crime No.0236 of 2024, dated 18.09.2024, registered
with Patoda Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the I.P.C.;
(2) Crime No.0163 of 2024, dated 29.09.2024, registered
with Shirsala Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.;
(3) Crime No.264 of 2024 dated 09.10.2024, registered with
Patoda Police Station, for the offence under Sections 406, 409,
467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., for the
offences allegedly committed during the period w.e.f.
01.04.2010 to 28.08.2013;
(4) Crime No.0313 of 2024, registered with Neknoor Police
Station, for the offence punishable under Section 109 of
6 of 17
(( 7 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act;
(5) Crime No.352 of 2024, registered with Ambajogai Police
Station, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, for the offence
punishable under Sections 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 135 of
the Maharashtra Police Act, Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 352
of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and lastly
(6) Crime No.0394 of 2024 got registered on 11.11.2024
with Beed Rural Police Station, Beed, for the offences under
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
under Sections 109, 115(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 351,
61(2) of B.N.S. 2023.
7. The learned senior counsel for the Appellant canvassed
that, in the FIR, the Respondent no. 2 informant, made specific
allegations against the Appellants for abusing him on the basis of his
caste in public view but said bare statement is not sufficient and it
does not create a bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to consider
the application for anticipatory bail. However, the learned Special
Court failed to consider said fact and passed the impugned order,
hence, prayed to quash and set aside the same.
7 of 17
(( 8 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
8. It is further canvassed that, as per the story given in the
F.I.R., on 10.11.2024, at about 8.30 p.m., the Respondent no. 2
alighted near the petrol pump on main road, at that time the accused
No.4 Aabasaheb Gopalghare along with other two unknown persons
visited him on motorcycle and took him beside the road. Thereafter,
the Appellant/accused No.4 Aabasaheb abused him on his caste.
However, the informant has not stated that, the accused No.4
Aabasaheb abused him on his caste within the public view. Therefore,
bar u/s 18 and 18-A of Atrocities Act does not create the bar but the
learned Special Court failed to consider said fact.
9. It is further canvassed that, as per contents of F.I.R., on
10.11.2024 at about 9.00 a.m., Respondent No.2 visited the bunglow
of Appellant/accused No.1 Ramkrishna Bangar and asked for return
of money which were given by him while securing employment, but
the accused No.1 abused him on his caste and then employees of
accused No.1 removed him. However, Respondent No.2 has not
disclosed the names of those employees. Therefore, the story of FIR is
concocted and just falsely implicated the Appellants with a view to
keep away the Appellant No.1 from contesting the elections.
8 of 17
(( 9 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
Therefore, prayed for enlarging the Appellants/accused on
anticipatory bail.
10. In support of these submissions, the learned Senior
counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the following case laws.
(i) Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another,
(2020) 10 SCC 710;
(ii) Sk. Akbar Sk. Bismillah and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Anr., Judgment dated 17.07.2022, passed by this
Court (Nagpur Bench) in Criminal Application (APL)
No.953 of 2019;
(iii) Priti Agarwalla and Others Vs. State of GNCT of Delhi
and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 973;
(iv) Shajan Skarla Vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2249;
(v) Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi Vs. The State of Odisha & Anr.,
Order dated 05.12.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No(s). 1608 of
2020.
11. Per contra, the learned APP canvassed that the
Investigating Officer conducted investigation and recorded spot
panchanama as well as statements of the witnesses. The I.O. obtained
the C.D.R. of the Mobile Phones of the accused and the victim. As per
the call detail reports, on the day of incident at about 9.00 a.m., the
9 of 17
(( 10 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
mobile of the informant/victim was moved in Beed, Manjarsumba,
Savangi, Kaij, Chandansavargaon, Dhaygudapimpla, Parali,
Lokhandisavargaon, Kaij, Hol, Manjarsumba, Beed. So also, from
22.42 hours to 23.46 hours, the mobile of Respondent No.2/victim
was under tower location of Beed city. The Respondent No.2/victim
was asked to produce the clothes he was wearing at the time of the
incident, but he failed to do so. The Investigating Officer drawn spot
panchanama as per location given by Respondent No.2/victim. The
spot of incident is 2 kms., away from Ghule Petrol Pump. Therefore,
statements of the witnesses from said petrol pump are not recorded.
After due investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any
substance or material evidence as against the accused persons,
therefore, on 30.01.2025, the Investigating Officer submitted “B”
summary report before the trial Court. Therefore, prayed for passing
of suitable order.
12. Per contra, Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate,
appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2 and canvassed in vehemence
that, several offences are registered against Appellant No.1
Ramkrishna Bangar, which shows about criminal antecedents against
the Appellant No.1 about committing several crimes. Further, as per
10 of 17
(( 11 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
the F.I.R., the accused/Appellant No.1 abused the Respondent No.2
on his caste in public view as per contents of Report. The Respondent
no. 2 specifically alleged that, the Accused no. 1 was present in the
gallery of his house and other employees removed the Respondent
no.2. However, the Investigating Officer has not conducted proper
investigation to show favour to the Appellants. So also, the
Investigating Officer has not collected CCTV footage from the house
of accused, which may prove about visit of Respondent No.2 abusing
him on his caste. Therefore, the informant Respondent No.2 made a
grievance with the Superintendent of Police and requested for
issuance of directions to the Investigating Officer to collect CCTV
footage. Since, the accused No.1 abused the informant/Respondent
No.2 on his caste in the public view, therefore, under Section 18 and
18-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act certainly creates and it is necessary to interrogate the
accused persons. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2/ Victim submitted that, the informant produced
colour photographs of burn injuries sustained to the Respondent
No.2. As per the injury certificate, the Respondent no. 2 received
18% serious burn injuries on his both legs, therefore, no prima-facie
11 of 17
(( 12 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
grounds are set out to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail,
hence, prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.
In support of these submissions, Mr. Dhorde, the learned
Senior counsel relied on the following cases:-
(i) Swaran Singh and others Vs. State through Standing
Counsel and another, (2008) 8 SCC 435;
(ii) Prashant Dagajirao Patil Vs. Vaibhav @ Sonu Arun Pawar
and Another, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal Nos.55-56
of 2021;
(iii) Shaikh Nasir S/o Shaikh Abdul Wahed Patel Vs. The State
of Maharashtra, Order dated 04.07.2022, passed by this
Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.753 of 2022;
(iv) Shaikh Naser Shaikh Abdul Wahed Patel Vs. State of
Maharashtra, Order dated 27.09.2022, passed by this
Court in Bail Application No.1495 of 2022;
(v) Haridas Bhaskar Mahale and another Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another, Order dated 27.02.2023,
passed by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.
204 of 2023.
13. Having regard to the strenuous submissions canvassed on
behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the entire record. The
Appellants/accused have prayed for anticipatory bail in Crime
No.0394 of 2024, registered with the Police Station (Rural), Beed, on
12 of 17
(( 13 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
11.11.2024, for the offences under Sections 109, 115(2), 318(4),
351(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
14. No doubt, Section 18 and 18-A of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, creates a bar for
grant of anticipatory bail in respect of crime registered under the
Atrocities Act, if such incident is occurred in the public view.
15. In the case of Hitesh Verma, cited (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that, insults or intimidations to a person will not
be offence under the 1989 Act, unless such insult or intimidation is
only on account of victim belonging to SC/ST. Therefore, it is
necessary to made out the case that when member of vulnerable
section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and
harassment, because of belonging to that vulnerable section of society
and such abusement should be in public view and observed in
paragraph 15, as under:-
“15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant
were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of
the informant that there was any member of the public (not
merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the13 of 17
(( 14 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were
uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In
the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain
witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were
the persons present within the four walls of the building. The
offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of
the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in
Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view
as none was said to be present within the four walls of the
building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.”
16. In the Judgment delivered on 27.07.2022 in case of Sk.
Akbar Sk. Bismillah, Criminal Application (APL) No.953 of 2019 at
Nagpur Bench of this Court, it is held that, it required to made out the
case for threat and intimidation in consumption with reference to the
caste or community in the public view.
17. In the case of Shajan Skaria, cited (supra), it is held that
Section 18 of the Act, 1989 does not impose an absolute fetter on the
power of the courts to examine whether a prima-facie case attracting
the provisions of the Act, 1989 is made out or not and Section 18
creates a bar the remedy of anticipatory bail only in those cases
where a valid arrest of the accused person can be made as per Section
41 read with Section 60A of Cr.P.C.
18. In recent Judgment delivered on 31.01.2025, by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8778
14 of 17
(( 15 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
– 8779 of 2024, (Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. By the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & Ors. ), it is held in
paragraph 11 thus:-
“11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place ‘within public
view’, the place should be open where the members of the
public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused
to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four
corners of the wall where members of the public are not
present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place
within public view.”
19. In case-in-hand, the Respondent no. 2 alleged that, on
11.11.2024, at about 9.00 a.m., he allegedly visited at the house of
accused No.1 and demanded Rs.4,00,000/-, which were given by him
while securing job but the accused allegedly abused him on his caste.
The house of accused Nos. 1 to 3 is not a public place, and said
utterance regarding caste was not made in public view. The F.I.R.
does not suggest that, when accused No.1 allegedly abused the
Respondent No.2 on the basis of his caste, the neighbors were present
and observing the scene. The incident appears to be occurred within
four-corners of the building walls. Therefore, considering the law laid
down in the cited case laws, the bar created u/s 18 and 18-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.
15 of 17
(( 16 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024
20. Needless to say that, on perusal of colour photographs
produced by Respondent No.2/complainant it shows that, the
Respondent No.2 sustained total 18% injuries to his both legs below
the knee. However, as per the Investigating Officer, the Respondent
No.2 failed to produce his clothes which were worn by him at the
time of incident. Therefore, the incident which is narrated by the
Respondent no. 2 comes under the shadow of doubt.
21. Nonetheless, after considering the affidavit-in-reply filed
by Shri Vishwamber Bhimrao Golde, the Investigating Officer, it
appears that, no any sign of scuffle and no sign of burning of grass
found at the spot of incident. Ultimately, the Investigating Officer
filed “B” summary report against the appellants. Therefore, taking
into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am
of the view that, the Appellants are entitled to release on anticipatory
bail. Accordingly, I am inclined to grant the present Appeal and
proceed to pass the following order:
:: ORDER ::
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order 19.11.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge, (Atrocities), Beed, Below Exh.1 in Criminal16 of 17
(( 17 )) 2-*Cri-Appeal-1028-2024Bail Application No.1237 of 2024 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(iii) In the event of arrest, the Appellants i.e. [1] Ramkrishna
s/o Maroti Bangar, [2] Vijaysingh @ Bala s/o Ramkrishna
Bangar, [3] Satyabhamabai w/o Ramkrishna Bangar and
[4] Aabasaheb s/o Bhanudas Gopalghare, be released on
bail in Crime No. 0394 of 2024 for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 318(4), 351(2),
351(3), 352, 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered
with Beed Police Station (Rural), on execution of P.R.
bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each of the
like amount.
(iv) The Appellants shall attend the concerned Police Station
on every Monday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till
filing of charge-sheet and they shall cooperate with the
Investigating Officer, if required.
(v) The Appellants shall not issue threat to the witnesses and
they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
SMS
17 of 17
[ad_1]
Source link