The seriousness of the offence, the presence of supporting witnesses, and the vulnerability of the complainant and other witnesses influenced the decision to deny bail to the appellant.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - This is an appeal under section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Atrocities Act") challenging the order dated 28.08.2020 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Pune, whereby application for bail fled on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. The appellant is one of the accused in FIR dated 17.08.2019 registered at Police Station Chakan, Pune for offences under sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3(2)(Va) of the Atrocities Act.

3. As per the FIR registered against the appellant and other accused persons, the respondent No.2 (original complainant) approached the police on 17.08.2019 stating that the accused, including the appellant herein had assaulted his son Akash (deceased) with wooden logs, due to which he suffered multiple injuries. According to respondent No.2, the incident had occurred on 04.08.2019. The accused persons had brought the said deceased to his residence at about 8:00 p.m. where respondent No.2 was present. They claimed that since the deceased was allegedly harassing certain girls of Swami Samarth School, Amrutnagar, they had beaten him. They threatened respondent No.2 to send the deceased to his village immediately.

4. According to respondent No.2, the deceased fell unconscious and he had to be admitted to the hospital. When the serious condition of the deceased was known to the accused, they came forward and paid the expenses for his treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries on 11.08.2019. According to the respondent No.2, the accused persons repeatedly threatened him and since they had borne the expenses of the treatment he did not approach the police earlier and after his son died, the respondent No.2 eventually approached the police for registration of the FIR.

5. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 16.10.2019. The appellant moved an application for bail before the Court below, which stood rejected by the impugned order. The Court below found that the offence was of serious nature and that there was material on record to connect the appellant with the offence and further that there was possibility of the witnesses being pressurized, if the appellant was released on bail.

6. Mr. Samir A. Vaidya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a perusal of the charge-sheet and the material on record demonstrated that there was nothing to connect the appellant with the aforesaid offence. It was submitted that there were no eye witnesses and that there was delay in registration of the FIR. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside and the appeal deserved to be allowed.

7. Smt. A. S. Pai, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent - State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and brought to the notice of this Court that an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2020, fled by two co-accused persons, was already dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 23.02.2021. It was submitted that allegations against the accused persons were similar and therefore the present appeal must also fail. It was further submitted that even otherwise there was sufficient material to link the appellant with the offence in question and therefore the appeal deserved to be dismissed.

8. A perusal of the judgment dated 23.02.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2020 in Ganpat Lohar and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another shows that the appeal of co-accused persons was indeed dismissed by this Court. The nature of contentions raised in the present appeal are similar to those raised in the aforesaid appeal and therefore, on this ground itself the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. Even otherwise, we find that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal cannot be accepted. The alleged delay in registration of the FIR appears