7-apeal-930-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 930 OF 2021

1) Dhanaji Bhau Choudhari

2) Mrs. Gulab Narayan Choudhari

3) Mrs. Nira Dhanaji Choudhari

...Appellants

Versus

Sr. Police Inspector

Murbad Police Station,

District- Thane & Ors.

...Respondents

……

Mr. Charan Penthalia for the Appellants.

Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the Respondent -State.

Ms. Akshata B. Desai, appointed for Respondent No.3.

…...

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

V.G.BISHT, JJ.

DATE :

13TH JUNE, 2022

P.C.:

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

parties and is taken up for final disposal.

3.

At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that he does

not press this appeal qua appellant No.1. He submits that during the

pendency of this appeal, the appellant No.1 was arrested and subsequently,

released on bail. Learned Counsel, however, presses this appeal qua

appellant Nos. 2 and 3.

Trupti

1/6

TRUPTI

SADANAND

BAMNE

Digitally

signed by

TRUPTI

SADANAND

BAMNE

Date:

2022.06.14

16:34:29

+0530

7-apeal-930-2021.doc

4.

By this appeal, the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 seek pre-arrest bail in

connection with C.R. No. 286 of 2021, registered with the Murbad Police

Station, District - Thane, for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 376 (2) (n), 417, 325, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (‘I.P.C.’) and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1) (w) (ii) and 3(2)

(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act (‘SCST Act’).

5.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the allegations as

against appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are false and baseless. He submits that the

alleged incident of hurling castiest abuses is alleged to have taken place on

4^th July, 2021, whereas, the complaint/ FIR was lodged by the respondent

No.3 after almost 24 days i.e. on 28^th July, 2021. He further submits that a

perusal of the FIR would show that a false complaint has been lodged by

the respondent No.3, as the appellant No.2’s son Rahul with whom the

respondent No.3 was having a love affair for almost seven years, had

refused to marry her. He further submits that the allegations of the

respondent No.3, are that the appellant No.2’s son i.e. Rahul had physical

relations with her, after promising marriage. He further submits that

appellant Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to have assaulted the complainant with a

wooden stick resulting in a fracture of her hand. He further submits that

during the course of investigation, co-accused Rahul Choudhari i.e. son of

Trupti

2/6

7-apeal-930-2021.doc

appellant No.2 was arrested and subsequently, released on bail. He further

submits that even otherwise the said incident of hurling castiest abuses has

not happened in public view so as to attract the provisions of SC ST Act.

6.

Learned APP and learned Counsel for respondent No.3 oppose the

appeal.

7.

Learned APP and learned Counsel for respondent No.3 are unable to

point out any witness in the charge-sheet to show the presence of any other

person at the time of alleged abuses .

8.

It appears from the perusal of complaint/ FIR that respondent No.3,

aged 30 years was in a relationship with the appellant No.2’s son from

2013 to 31^st December, 2020. According to respondent No.3, on 4^th July,

2021 when she went to Rahul’s house, the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 assaulted

her with a wooden stick and abused her in the name of her caste. It is the

respondent No.3’s case, that on 27^th July, 2021, she learnt that the appellant

No.2’s son -Rahul was getting married within 8 to 15 days with another

girl, pursuant to which, she filed a complaint / FIR as against Rahul, the

appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and and other co-accused. Respondent No.3 has

alleged that Rahul had established physical relations with her on the

pretext of marriage and that when she visited Rahul’s hou