Pravin s/o. Shrimant Bhutekar vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(Bom) 174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
A. V.POTDAR, J.
Pravin s/o. Shrimant Bhutekar
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Criminal Application No.314 of 2010
Decided On : 4th February, 2010.

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S.J. Salunke, learned counsel for Applicant.
Mr. N.B. Patil, learned App, for Respondents.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x) - Penal Code, 1860, Sections 323 and 506 - Grant of anticipatory bail - Application for - Dispute in respect of administration in working of Gram Panchayat - Interference at hands of applicant alleged by complainant - Alleged incident occurred on 4.1.2010 in night and in field - Not in public place - Reported to police station on 7.1.2010 - Held - Complaint containing smell of political rivalry - Delay in lodging complaint caused due to consultation with senior political leader of area - Interim protection granted to applicant for 6 weeks or till filing of charge-sheet - Application allowed. - Considering the submissions across the bar as well as the disclosure of the facts in the complaint, the alleged incident took place in the night of 4.1.2010, in the field of one Sheshrao Eknath Gandhake. Thus the fact is clear that the alleged incident had not occurred in the public place. Secondly, even though the incident occurred in the night of 4.1.2010, it is reported in the Police Station on 7.1.2010 i.e. after delay of 3 days for which there appeared to be an explanation in the FIR itself that after the incident, on the next day, the complainant and others approached their senior leader at Aurangabad and thereafter the offence came to be registered in Ghansawangi Police Station. It require to be looked into from the angle that in para No. 2, there is statement that the wife of the present complainant is the Sarpanch of the said village and there is dispute about the administration in the working of the Gram Panchayat, as according to the complainant there is interference at the hands of the present applicant. Thus there is smell of political rivalry to this complaint which also causes certain delay in lodging the complaint. Whether this doubt is genuine or not, it will be considered at the time of trial, but at this juncture, one of the causes to explain the delay to lodge the complaint is the consultation with senior political leader of the area. Thus, there is some political touch to this complaint and if it is so, even though there is bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, exception is made out to consider the application for anticipatory bail. A fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 438 of Cr PC.
       In the result, application succeed, and hence order :
       ORDER
       1. Application is allowed.
       2. The interim protection granted on 22.1.2010 to continue for the further period of 6 weeks or till filing of the charge-sheet sheet whichever is later.
       3. After filing of the charge-sheet, applicant may apply for regular bail, if so advised.
       4. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT:- By the present application. the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.3001/l0, registered in Ghansawangi Police Station, for the offence punishable u/ss.3( 1 )(x) of SCIST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. and u/ss.323 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of leaned counsel appearing for the State. Also perused the complaint and papers of investigation till carried out.

3. Considering the submissions across the bar as well as the disclosure of the facts in the complaint. the alleged incident took place in the night of 04/01/2010, in the field of one Sheshrao Eknath Gandhake. Thus the fact is clear that the alleged incident is not occurred in the public place. Secondly, even though the incident occurred in the night of

04/0 1/2010, it is reported in the police station on 07/01/2010 i.e. after delay of 3 days for which there is appeared to be an explanation in the FIR itself that after the incident. on the next day, the complainant and others approached their senior leader at Aurangabad and thereafter the of fence came to be registered in Ghansawangi Police Station. It requires to be looked into from the angle that in para no.2, there is statement that the wife of the present complainant is the Sarpanch of the said village and there is dispute about the administration in the working of the gram-panchayat, as according t6 the complainant, there is interference at the hands of the present applicant. Thus there is smell of political rivalry to this complaint which also causes certain delay in lodging the complaint. Whether this doubt is genuine or not. it will be considered at the time of trial, but at this juncture. one of the cause to explain the delay to lodge the complaint is the consultation with senior political leader of the area. Thus, there is some political touch to this complaint and if it is so. even though there is bar u/s.18 of the Atrocities Act.. exception is made out to consider the application for anticipatory bail. A fit case to exercise the discretion u/s.438 of Cr. P.C.

4. In the result, application succeed, and hence order:

ORDER

1. Application is allowed.

2. The interim protection granted on 22/01/2010 to continue for the further period of 6 weeks or till filing of the charge/sheet whichever is later.

3. After filing of the charge-sheet, applicant may apply for regular bail, if so advised.

4. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

Application allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(Bom) 174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)A. V.POTDAR, J.Pravin s/o. Shrimant Bhutekar Vs.State of Maharashtra & Anr.Criminal Application No.314 of 2010 Decided On : 4th February, 2010.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
A. V.POTDAR, J.
Pravin s/o. Shrimant Bhutekar
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Criminal Application No.314 of 2010
Decided On : 4th February, 2010.