Hema Suresh Ahuja vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 598

D. K. UPADHYAYA, SARANG V. KOTWAL
Hema Suresh Ahuja – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vaibhav Salvi, Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashwet Bhoir i/b. Mr. Shailesh Kharat for the Appellants.; Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General i/b. Mr. H.S. Venegaokar, Public Prosecutor a/w. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent-State., Mr. Devang Vyas, Additional Solicitor General, a/w. Mr. D.P. Singh and Mr. Sheelang Shah for the Respondent - Union of India., Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Amicus Curiae a/w. Mr. Vikramjit Garewal and Ms. Aneesa Cheema, Mr. Amit Arvind Katarnaware, Advocate a/w. Mr. Aditya Arvind Katarnaware for the Respondent No.2 / Victim., Mr. Alankar Kirpekar, Advocate a/w. Mr. Susmit Phatale, Mr. Ashish Ingle, Mr. Ayush Tiwari, Mr. Somnath Kale and Mr. Nikhil Adkine i/b. Susmit Sanjay Phatale for Intervener.

JUDGMENT

Sarang V. Kotwal, J. - This matter is placed before us to answer the reference made by a Single Judge Bench of this Court (Coram: Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.) in Criminal Appeal No.911/2019 vide the order dated 9.8.2019. Following are the issues referred for our decision:

(1) Whether proceeding under 15A(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 would amount to a judicial proceeding as contemplated under section 2(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ?

(2) Whether it would be necessary to video record any proceeding relating to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, especially when the proceedings are held in open court, as contemplated under section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and what would be the objective to be achieved ?

(3) Whether hearing of a bail application under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is a judicial proceeding as contemplated under section 15A of the said Act ?

(4) Whether section 15A (10) of the said Act could be implemented in the absence of rules framed under the Act or formulation of a scheme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Bom) 598

D. K. UPADHYAYA, SARANG V. KOTWALHema Suresh Ahuja – AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra – Respondent

Cases Referred (10)

D. K. UPADHYAYA, SARANG V. KOTWAL
Hema Suresh Ahuja – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent