Sagar Eknath Tayde v. State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Jalgaon Jamod Tah.Jalgaon Dist.Buldhana And Another

925-apeal-714-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2022 Sagar Eknath Tayde

Versus

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Jalgan Jamod, Dist. Buldhana Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri Gopal Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri V.A.Thakare, APP for the State / Non-applicant Ms. Priyanka Arbat, Advocate for the non-applicant no.2.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATED : 20th DECEMBER, 2022.

This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail in Crime No. 416 of 2022, for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 366, 365, 354-A, 354-D, 120-B, 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short referred as 'Atrocities Act'). 2.

Case of the prosecution is that accused persons after recording Video and by taking SKNair

925-apeal-714-22.odt photographs of the deceased with one Mane who was earlier made accused and on the basis of it they sought sexual favour from the deceased, because of which she committed suicide.

3.

As far as the appellant is concerned, a specific role is attributed to him by the witnesses. Shri Rajendra Sirsat, the eye witness was present at the time of incident and he has narrated the complete incident including role of the applicant, in his statement. 4.

Prima facie, looking to the role attributed to the appellant, there is sufficient material to connect the appellant with the alleged offence.

5.

The offence is serious and considering the maximum punishment, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

i.

Criminal appeal is rejected.

ii.

The fees of Ms. Priyanka Arbat, appointed Advocate be quantified as per Rule.

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] by SACHINDANAND K NAIR Date: 2022.12.20 18:25:43 +0530 SACHINDANAND K NAIR SKNair