Advocates:
['Shinde Dhananjay M', 'COPY SERVED ON P P', '', 'Z H Farooqui AND TAPASE PRABUDHA P', 'TAPASE PRABUDHA P']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.620 OF 2021

SK.Amanulla @ Jilani s/o Mohammad

Yusuf

- APPELLANT

VERSUS

1)

The State of Maharashtra

Through Narsi Police Station,

District Hingoli and Anr.

- RESPONDENTS

*****

Mr.DM Shinde, Advocate for appellant;

Mr.SS Dande,APP for Resp.No.1-State;

Mr.P.P.Tapse, Adv. For Resp.No.2.

-----

CORAM :V.K.JADHAV AND

SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE,JJ.

DATE : 31

^st

January, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

The

appellant-accused

is

seeking

anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.

102/2021 registered with Narasi Police Station, Tq.

and District Hingoli, for the offences punishable

under Sections 306, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the

Atrocities Act. As his application with similar

prayer bearing Bail Application No.401/2021 came to

be rejected by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track

Court) Hingoli, vide order dated 20.11.2021 in terms

2

of provisions of Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act,

this appeal has been preferred.

2.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-accused

submits that name of the present appellant is not

mentioned in the FIR and the allegations have been

made mainly on co-accused Sangita, who is now

released on regular bail after arrest. The learned

Counsel submits that there are allegations made in

the complaint that due to harassment at the hands of

said co-accused Sangita, with whom deceased Namdeo

had allegedly developed illicit sexual relations, the

deceased had committed suicide. However, merely on

the basis of the presence of the present appellant at

the house of co-accused Sangita at the relevant time,

he has been implicated in connection with the present

crime as an accused. The learned Counsel further

submits that deceased Namdeo had committed suicide in

the house of co-accused Sangita. There is no

connecting evidence against the appellant. In the

given set of allegations custodial interrogation of

the appellant is not required. There are no criminal

antecedents. The appellant is ready to abide by the

conditions and also ready to co-operate the

3

Investigating agency to carry out further

investigation into the crime,if any.

3.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits

that the appellant was also threatening the deceased

to withdraw the complaint in respect of the crime No.

83/2020 registered with Narasi police station

District Hingoli. The learned Counsel submits that

the appellant was also threatening deceased Namdeo

for recovery of his amount owed by co-accused Sangita

and unless that recovery is made, he was not allowing

deceased Namdeo to continue with his illicit

relations with co-accused Sangita. The learned

Counsel further submits that deceased Namdeo died

otherwise than under normal circumstances at the

house of co-accused Sangita. In view of the same,

custodial interrogation of the appellant is required

to find out the truth.

4.

Learned APP submits that though name of the

present appellant is not mentioned in the FIR,

however, during the course of the investigation, it

has been revealed that the appellant was also

threatening the deceased for one or the another count

4

and he was actually present in the house of the co-

accused Sangita at the time of suicidal death of

deceased Namdeo. The deaf and dumb son viz. Shankar

Namdeo Pawar of the deceased has described the same

as person present in their house. Even on that day,

at the instance of co-accused Sangita, her own son

had gone to purchase the liquor bottles for deceased

Namdeo and co-accused Sangita. The learned APP

submits that custodial interrogation of the appellant

is required.

5.

We have carefully gone through the

allegations made in the complaint, the contents of

the complaint and also perused the police papers. It

appears that the concerned Medical officer, who has

conducted the post-mortem examination on