Sachin Shankar Sawant v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.198 OF 2025 Sachin Shankar Sawant .... Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

.... Respondents ----- Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Ms. Keral Mehta i/b Adv. Sachin, Advocate for the Appellant.

Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP, for the Respondent - State. Mr. Nitin Wankhede i/b Ravikant Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

----- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date:

2025.07.03 19:24:08 +0530 SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM DATE : 2nd JULY, 2025.

P.C. :

1.

The Appellant is apprehending arrest in Crime No.43 of 2025 registered with Urali Kanchan Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 333, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2.

It is prosecution's case that on 3rd February, 2025 at about Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/4

around 8:00 a.m. when the first informant was present in her house, the Appellant who is her neighbor went in her house and caught hold her right hand. When the first informant shouted at that time the Appellant went away. After sometime, he returned back and started shouting that he has got keys. The first informant was telling him not to shout, at that time, the Appellant abused her and manhandled her.

3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed against the Appellant. There are no allegations against the Appellant that he abused the first informant on caste. Hence, requested to allow the appeal. 4.

It is contention of learned APP, along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2, that the Appellant was a neighbor of the first informant and was aware about the caste of the first informant. In spite of that he went in her house and outraged her modesty. The Appellant is a influential person in the village. Considering allegations against him, his custodial interrogation is required and requested to dismiss the appeal.

5.

I have heard all learned counsel. Perused F.I.R. and charge Shantanu S. Dhudum 2/4

sheet.

6.

The allegations against the Appellant are that he entered house of the first informant, and he outraged her modesty, and abused her, and manhandled her. There are no allegations against the Appellant are that he abused the first informant on caste. Moreover, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed against the Appellant. Hence, his custodial interrogation is not required, and I pass following order :

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed.

ii. Appellant be released on bail on in Crime No.43 of 2025 registered with Urali Kanchan Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R. Bond 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

iii. The Appellant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

iv. The Appellant shall not enter Urali Kanchan village for two months, after receipt of this order.

v. The Appellant shall not contact/influence or threaten or pressurize the complainant or otherwise tamper Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/4

with the prosecution witness.

7.

It is made clear that above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merit in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

8.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

9.

All the concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum 4/4