Aditi Arun Shinde And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra
* 1/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.610 OF 2017 Aditi Arun Shinde and Ors.
....Appellants V/s.
The State of Maharashtra .......Respondent Mr. Prakash N. Wagh, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. H.J.Dedhia , APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM :
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE :
DATE :
July 19, 2017.
July 19, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] Heard the learned counsel for the appellantsHeard the learned counsel for the appellantsoriginal accused nos.1 to 3 and the learned APP for the original accused nos.1 to 3 and the learned APP for the State.
State.
This appeal has been preferred by the This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.2017 appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Thane passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Thane in the Anticipatory Bail Application preferred by the in the Anticipatory Bail Application preferred by the appellants. By the said order, application of the appellants appellants. By the said order, application of the appellants
* 2/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc for anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-107 of 2017 of Mira Road for anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-107 of 2017 of Mira Road Police Station under Sections under Sections 143, 147, 149, Police Station under Sections under Sections 143, 147, 149, 354, 324, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under 354, 324, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1), 2, 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the S.C. & S.T. Sections 3(1), 2, 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected. It (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected. It is the case of the complainant that she belongs to is the case of the complainant that she belongs to scheduled tribe.
scheduled tribe.
On 16.3.2017, persons from Municipal On 16.3.2017, persons from Municipal Corporation demolished unauthorized shed of the Corporation demolished unauthorized shed of the appellants. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and husband appellants. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and husband and the appellant no.3 is brother of appellant no.1. and the appellant no.3 is brother of appellant no.1. Complainant went and opened the gate of the society Complainant went and opened the gate of the society hence, appellants got annoyed and abused her in relation hence, appellants got annoyed and abused her in relation to her caste and gave her fist blows. Appellant No.3 to her caste and gave her fist blows. Appellant No.3 embraced her and appellant no.2 tore her blouse and embraced her and appellant no.2 tore her blouse and pressed her chest.
Hence, she lodged complaint. pressed her chest. Hence, she lodged complaint.
* 3/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc the appellants abused her in relation to her caste. It is only the appellants abused her in relation to her caste. It is only after some days for the first time she came up with the after some days for the first time she came up with the story that the appellants abused her in relation to her caste story that the appellants abused her in relation to her caste hence, her supplementary statement was recorded after hence, her supplementary statement was recorded after many days after the incident and thereafter section relating many days after the incident and thereafter section relating to the Atrocity Act was added. We are of the opinion that to the Atrocity Act was added.
We are of the opinion that false allegations have been made by way of an false allegations have been made by way of an afterthought against the appellants in relation to giving afterthought against the appellants in relation to giving abuses to the complainant in relation to her caste. abuses to the complainant in relation to her caste. There are allegations in the FIR that the There are allegations in the FIR that the appellant nos.2 and 3 committed an offence under Section appellant nos.2 and 3 committed an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocity Act. It is noticed that in the FIR, 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocity Act. It is noticed that in the FIR, complainant has stated that the appellant no.3 embraced complainant has stated that the appellant no.3 embraced her and at that time, appellant no.
2 tore her blouse and her and at that time, appellant no.2 tore her blouse and pressed her chest. As far as this allegation is concerned, pressed her chest. As far as this allegation is concerned, when according to the complainant, appellant no.3 had when according to the complainant, appellant no.3 had embraced her in such condition, it was not possible for the embraced her in such condition, it was not possible for the appellant no.2 to tear her blouse and press her chest. In appellant no.2 to tear her blouse and press her chest. In the FIR, the complainant does not state that the appellant the FIR, the complainant does not state that the appellant no.3 embraced her from behind. On reading the FIR, it no.3 embraced her from behind.
* 4/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc appears that appellant no.3 embraced her from the front appears that appellant no.3 embraced her from the front side in which case it was not possible for the appellant no.2 side in which case it was not possible for the appellant no.2 to do the act as stated by the complainant in the FIR. to do the act as stated by the complainant in the FIR. Another important aspect which is to be noted is Another important aspect which is to be noted is that firstly, the appellant no.1-Aditi Shinde lodged FIR that firstly, the appellant no.1-Aditi Shinde lodged FIR being C.R.No.106 of 2017 against the complainant in the being C.R.No.106 of 2017 against the complainant in the present case. Thereafter, the complainant in the present present case. Thereafter, the complainant in the present case has lodged C.R.No.
107 of 2017 against the present case has lodged C.R.No.107 of 2017 against the present appellants. In FIR, i.e. C.R.No.106 of 2017, the appellant appellants. In FIR, i.e. C.R.No.106 of 2017, the appellant no.1-Aditi Shinde (Complainant) has stated that on no.1-Aditi Shinde (Complainant) has stated that on 16.3.2017 at 12.15 am , she was informed that persons 16.3.2017 at 12.15 am , she was informed that persons from the Municipal Corporation were demolishing the from the Municipal Corporation were demolishing the property in their land hence, they went to the spot. By that property in their land hence, they went to the spot. By that time, Corporation officers and workers completed time, Corporation officers and workers completed demolition and were leaving the spot. The Appellant No.1 demolition and were leaving the spot.
The Appellant No.1 in her FIR stated that Manjula Patel i.e. the complainant in in her FIR stated that Manjula Patel i.e. the complainant in the present case along with others started throwing her the present case along with others started throwing her belongings. When the appellant no.1-Aditi Shinde belongings. When the appellant no.1-Aditi Shinde questioned Manjula Patel and others about what they were questioned Manjula Patel and others about what they were doing, they abused her and assaulted her with fists blows. doing, they abused her and assaulted her with fists blows.
* 5/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc Manjula Patel assaulted Aditi Shinde with wooden log. Manjula Patel assaulted Aditi Shinde with wooden log. Umesh Patel assaulted Aditi Shinde with an iron rod. On Umesh Patel assaulted Aditi Shinde with an iron rod. On account of assault, Aditi Shinde sustained injury to her account of assault, Aditi Shinde sustained injury to her hand. It is noticed that medical reports of Aditi Shinde in hand. It is noticed that medical reports of Aditi Shinde in C.R.No.106/2017 shows that she had sustained fracture of C.R.No.106/2017 shows that she had sustained fracture of hand. Looking to this fact, we find much merit in the hand. Looking to this fact, we find much merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR No.
107/2017 was lodged by Manjula Patel against the FIR No.107/2017 was lodged by Manjula Patel against the appellants as counter blast to the FIR No.106/2017 the appellants as counter blast to the FIR No.106/2017 lodged by Aditi Shinde. Thus, we are of the opinion that lodged by Aditi Shinde. Thus, we are of the opinion that even the allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) has been falsely even the allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) has been falsely made against the appellant nos.2 and 3 by way of countermade against the appellant nos.2 and 3 by way of counterblast. As stated earlier, appellant no.2 is husband of the blast. As stated earlier, appellant no.2 is husband of the appellant No.1-Aditi Shinde and the appellant no.3 is appellant No.1-Aditi Shinde and the appellant no.3 is brother of Aditi Shinde.
brother of Aditi Shinde.
Looking to all the above facts, we are of the Looking to all the above facts, we are of the opinion that C.R.No.107 of 2017 has been lodged by opinion that C.R.No.107 of 2017 has been lodged by making false allegations against the appellants by way of making false allegations against the appellants by way of counter blast to C.R.No.106 of 2017 which was lodged by counter blast to C.R.No.106 of 2017 which was lodged by appellant no.1 against the complainant-Manjula Patel in appellant no.1 against the complainant-Manjula Patel in
* 6/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc C.R.No.107 of 2017. Looking to the above facts, we are C.R.No.107 of 2017. Looking to the above facts, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants, hence, inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants, hence, the following order:
the following order:
(I) (I) In the event of arrest, each of the In the event of arrest, each of the appellants be released on bail in the sum of appellants be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount and PR Bond of like up the said amount and PR Bond of like amount.
amount.
(II) (II) Each of the appellants shall report to Each of the appellants shall report to Mira Road Police Station every day from Mira Road Police Station every day from 26.7.2017 for a period of 10 days from 11 26.7.2017 for a period of 10 days from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and thereafter as and when a.m. to 1 p.m. and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer.
required by the Investigating Officer.
Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)