{1}

911 sr.no..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

911 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.325 OF 2021

Dr. Suhas s/o. Kishanrao Yadav,

Age 46 yars, Occ. Doctor,

R/o. Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai,

Dist. Beed.

.. Appellant.

Versus

1]

The State of Maharashtra

Through In-charge Police Inspector,

Ambajogai City Police Station,

Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

2]

Sau. Asmita w/o. Anil Ovhal

Age 25 years, Occ. Labour,

R/o. Milind Nagar, Ambajogai,

Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

.. Respondents.

Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr. Sandip R. Sapkal, Amarnath S.

Sakhare, and Ajit B. Chormal,

APP for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.N. Morampalle.

Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. Pratap B. Vikhe Patil

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL/338/2021

Mahesh s/o. Baburao Male,

Age 25 years, Occ.Service,

R/o. Talegaon Ghat, Tq. Ambejogai,

Dist. Beed.

.. Appellant

Versus

{2}

911 sr.no..odt

1]

The State of Maharashtra

Through In-charge Police Inspector,

Ambajogai City Police Station,

Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

2]

Sau. Asmita w/o. Anil Ovhal

Age 25 years, Occ. Labour,

R/o. Milind Nagar, Ambajogai,

Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

.. Respondents.

Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. S.N. Morampalle, APP for respondent No.1.

Mr. P.B. Vikhe Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 15.07.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1]

These are the appeals under Section 14A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (hereinafter the Atrocities Act), being aggrieved and dissatisfied by

the impugned order refusing anticipatory bail and regular bail to the

respective appellants.

2]

The FIR has been lodged by a nurse who was serving in the

hospital of appellant Dr. Yadav on 15.5.2021 alleging that on 7.5.2021,

appellant Mahesh, who happened to be her colleague in the hospital

molested her by holding her hand. She also alleges that even Dr. Yadav,

many a times asked her for sexual favours. With these allegation the

investigation proceeded. The appellant Mahesh was arrested on

12.6.2021 and is in magisterial custody, who is now seeking a regular

bail, whereas, Dr. Yadav apprehends that he would be arrested and is

{3}

911 sr.no..odt

seeking anticipatory bail.

3]

The learned Senior Advocate - Mr. Sapkal for Dr. Yadav

submits that the allegations as against him are put up belatedly without

there being any explanation for the delayed disclosure. He would point

out that the incident as regards molestation by appellant Mahesh is

stated to have taken place on 7.5.2021. She filed FIR on 15.5.2021, after

8 days of the incident. Even her supplementary statement was recorded

on the next day. Later her statement was recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. on 18 May 2021. In none of these statements, had she ever

whispered about any attempt by Dr. Yadav to molest her, much less,

asking for her sexual favours. He would further point out that in the

CCTV footage of the hospital being run by Dr. Yadav, it was revealed that

the victim had stolen some cash from the counter and had handed it over

to appellant Mahesh. It is only after he had disclosed this in writing

addressed to the Police Officer that the victim informant seems to have

falsely implicated him as an after-thought. He is a Doctor of repute. He

would be put to avoidable harassment if he is not protected. Accepting

the allegations as it is, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. The

offence under the Atrocities Act cannot be made out against him. There

are no allegations attributing him with the knowledge of victim'

s caste,

which is a pre-condition for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)

(w) of the Atrocities Act and conseque