44.cri.apeal.63.2021.doc

Tandale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2021

Neha Vijay Gore

…. Appellant

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

…. Respondents.

Mr. Niranjan Mogre a/w Mr. Siddhesh Borkar for the Appellant.

Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.

Mr. B. G. Gade, ACP, Turbhe Division, present.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.

DATE : 19^th MARCH, 2021.

P.C.:-

1.

By a reasoned Order dated 22^nd January 2021, the appellant

was granted interim relief.

Perused the record of investigation.

2.

The record indicates that, the Investigating Officer of the

present crime has given due intimation to the respondent No.2 about filing

of the present Appeal and the scheduled date of hearing. Despite specific

intimation by the concerned Investigating Officer, respondent No.2 is not

present.

3.

The record clearly indicates that, for an alleged incident dated

25^th November 2019, the respondent No.2 initially lodged a crime on 29^th

September 2020 with Lonavala City Police Station under Sections 406, 420,

467, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 29^th

September 2020, despite having sufficient and ample opportunity, the

1/2

44.cri.apeal.63.2021.doc

respondent No.2 did not narrate the alleged fact of abuses by the appellant

on his caste to him. The respondent No.2 subsequently lodged another

crime i.e. C.R.No.0206 of 2020, on 8^th December 2020 with CBD Belapur

Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the same incident of 25^th November 2019

only with addition of allegations of abuses on his caste by the appellant. It

clearly appears from the record that, as and by way of an afterthought the

subsequent F.I.R. was registered by the respondent No.2 with a different

police station for adding the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4.

Apart from the factum of delay, even in lodging the first crime,

the record clearly indicates that, the conduct of respondent No.2 is not

bonafide in approaching two different police stations with variance in his

allegations.

5.

In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that, the lodgment

of subsequent crime i.e. C.R. No.0206 of 2020 registered with CBD Belapur

Police Station, Navi Mumbai is not a genuine and bonafide narration of

facts by the respondent No.2 and the appellant deserves to be protected by

pre-arrest bail.

6.

In view of the above, interim relief granted by Order dated 22^nd

January 2021 is confirmed.

7.

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(A.S. GADKARI, J.)

2/2