Public Prosecutor

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2006 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Gangaram Baburao Jagtap ....Respondent Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, A.P.P. For Appellant Mr. Heramb S. Kadam i.b. Mr. S.A.Sawant For Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 5th March, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. 1, Stand over to 06/03/2020. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.94 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ) ….Appellant/Complainant V/s. Gangaram Baburao Jagtap Age 45 years., Occ.: Talathi R/o. Fatyapur, Taluka & District – Satara ) ) ) .….Respondent/Accused ---- Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for State – Appellant. Mr. Heramb S. Kadam i/b. Mr. S.A. Sawant for respondent. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 6th MARCH 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 19th October 2004 passed by the Special Judge for Anti Corruption, Satara, acquitting respondent (accused) of offences punishable under Section 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). 2 Complainant Ramchandra Dadasaheb Shinde (PW-1) had purchased some agricultural land. After about 8-9 months, further agricultural land was purchased in his brother's name. A week thereafter, PW-1 gave a photocopy of the sale deed and relevant documents to accused, who was the Talathi of the village Venegaon and requested him to mutate the name of his younger brother in 7/12 register. Accused, however, avoided doing the same on one ground or the other and on 16th October 1999, when PW-1 met him, accused told him that he has to give Rs.1000/- on 20th October 1999 at Tahasil office, Satara. PW-1 realised that unless the bribe amount was given, the work will not be done and therefore, decided to approach the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.). PW-1 then lodged the complaint with PW-4 – Vidhyadhar Shete, the Investigating Officer and after complying with the pre-trap formalities, the A.C.B. office, Satara, decided to trap accused on 20th October 1999. Complainant and PW-3, the panch witness, met accused on 20th October 1999 and complainant gave Rs.1000/ tainted currency to accused, who accepted it with his right hand and put it in his pocket on the right side of his pant. Thereafter, PW-1 gave the agreed signal, the raiding team swooped and PW-4 caught the wrist of accused. Under ultraviolet light, the hand of accused was examined and so also the pocket and anthracene marks were found. Post-trap panchnama was prepared, investigation commenced and after obtaining sanction from the Sub Divisional Officer – Kanhuraj Harichandra Bagate (PW-2), complaint was filed. Once the further investigation was over and statements were recorded, chargesheet was filed and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3 To prove its case, prosecution led evidence of four witnesses as against 16 witnesses listed in the chargesheet. No independent witness was examined. The four witnesses are Ramchandra Dadasaheb Shinde, complainant (PW-1); Kanhuraj Harichandra Bagate, Sub Divisional Officer (PW-2); Sambhaji Bhausaheb Budhawale, panch witness (PW-3); and Vidhyadhar Bharma Shete, Investigating Officer (PW-4). Gauri Gaekwad 4 The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal V/s. State of U.P. 1 has culled out the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said judgment read as under: The following principles emerge from the cases above: The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; 1 . (2008) 10 SCC 450 iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka 2 has held that unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, Appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court. 2 . (2014) 5 SCC 730 The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat 3 has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court finds the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was nothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the Appeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions. 5 Demand and acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration is the crux of a bribery case. Besides, Section 7 of the PC Act lays down that agreement to accept or the acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration is to be the motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in exercise of his official functions any favour or disfavour to any person, i.e, complainant. We will have to scrutinize the evidence on record and see if accused had made demand for Rs.1000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from complainant for mutating the name of his brother in the revenue record against the agricultural land which they had purchased under a conditional sale deed or the amount was given to him for the purpose of stamp papers and payment of registration fee etc. 3 . 1996 SCC (cri) 972 6 In the first place, it has to be noted that PW-1 in his complaint as well as in his deposition, has stated that photocopies of sale deed relating to his younger brother were given to accused for effecting mutation. But in the documents seized, no such photocopies were available. Secondly, which is really fatal to prosecution's case is that complainant alleged that on 16th October 1999, when he met accused, accused made demand of Rs.1000/- as bribe. It has come on record that between 15th October 1999 and 26th October 1999 accused was on medical leave. The entries made in the service book of accused shows that accused was on leave from 15th October 1999 to 26th October 1999 on medical grounds. There is no evidence to show that during his medical leave, accused came to the office on 16th October 1999. Therefore, prosecution's case that PW-1 met accused on 16th October 1999, when accused demanded Rs.1000/- for making the mutation entry, is not believable. 7 One more point is that even the application moved by complainant for making the mutation entry is not coming forth. PW-2, the sanctioning authority, has in his cross examination stated that he came to know that the requisite mutation entry was made by accused and he also came to know that after some months of making that entry, complainant had given his complaint in A.C.B. office, Satara. PW-2 also says that the Revenue Circle Officer has to take decision within 8 days after service of notices on the interested parties and 7/12 extract cannot be issued by the Talathi unless the entry is certified by Revenue Circle Officer. PW-2 further says that the job 7 / 9 413.Apeal-94-2006.doc of Talathi comes to an end after taking entry and effecting the service of the notices on the concerned person and in the instant case, PW-2 had found that Talathi (accused) had made entry, effected service of notices and had sent the matter to Revenue Circle Officer for certification. Therefore, there was nothing left to be done by accused. Interestingly, PW-2 says after he read the documents, he felt suspicious about the genuineness of complaint lodged by PW-1 against accused. PW-2 also says he thought over whether permission for prosecution has to be granted and PW-2 required to be protected. Nevertheless, PW-2 went ahead and granted the sanction. 8 These are grounds alongwith many other which have been recorded in the judgment impugned which prevailed over the Trial Court to pass the order of acquittal. For the sake of brevity, I am not reproducing those points but certainly those points have the approval of this Court. 9 Even for a moment we accept that there was a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, the same is a rebuttable presumption and the burden placed on accused for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. 10 Paragraph 11 of State of Gujarat V/s. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi & Ors. 4 reads as under : So far as the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act for the offence under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it is settled law that the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption, and that the burden placed on the appellant for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI Cochin, High Court of 4 . (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 242 Keralar (2009) 3 SCC 779, this Court held as under:- "21. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accuse charged with the offence could rebut it either through the crossexamination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence....… It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt..." Since it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe." 11 There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. 12 In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, need not be interfered with. 13 Appeal dismissed. 14 The Government/Appropriate Authority shall pay over to respondent, within a period of 30 days from today, all pensionary or other Gauri Gaekwad benefits/dues stalled, in view of pendency of this appeal. If during the service, in view of this matter, the promotions or increments of accused have been affected, the concerned Authority/Department will pay, proceed and calculate on the basis that there was no such matter ever on record against accused and will factor in all promotions and increments that accused would have been entitled to and all the amounts shall be accordingly paid within 30 days. After 30 days interest at 12% p.a. will have to be paid by Government/ Appropriate Authority to respondent. No authority shall demand certified copy for reimbursing the benefits/dues as directed above. All to act on authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy expedited. (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and anr. .. Appellants vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents ---------------- Mr. R.S. Deshpande a/w Mr. Vijay S. Thakur for the Appellants. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State. Mr. Vinayak Narale, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambernath Division, Thane City present. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2021 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants. He seeks leave to amend so as to implead the complainant as a party Respondent. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. The ofence is registered against the Appellants in respect of C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane for the ofences punishable under Section 354-D of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(W) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the said Act' for short) on the basis of FIR given by the complainant-Ms. Apeksha Dalvi. 14.APEAL.574-21.doc Ms. Apeksha Dalvi is a President of RPI (Women Wing) of Thane District. The Appellant No.1 is the President of RPI Maharashtra State and the Appellant No.2 is the President of RPI Shahpur Taluka. It is the case of the Appellant No.1 that he being a Vice President of RPI Maharashtra appointed one lady as a President of Shahpur Taluka RPI, without consulting the complainant. The complainant was therefore annoyed and hence the submission of Appellant that a false case is registered against them. It is alleged that the Appellant No.1 has posted some messages in a whatsapp group of RPI Thane District which are derogatory in nature and insulting. Even the Appellant No.2 has posted some messages on the whatsapp group which afects the dignity and honour of the complainant and hence the ofence is registered. The trial Court rejected the application for bail. It is contended by learned counsel for the Applicants that the basic ingredients of ofence under Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act are not made out. The Appellant No.2-Jayvant Bhagawan Thorat belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The trial Court therefore held that so far as the ofence under the said Act alleged against Jayvant is concerned, the same may not be attracted in his case. As against the Appellant No.1-Farooq Sattar Dalvi, the trial Court held that prima facie Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act would be attracted. As against both the Appellants, trial Court observed that Section 354(D) of IPC will be applicable. 14.APEAL.574-21.doc It is the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an ofence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The ofence under Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation must be with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that the whatsapp messages posted were not with the object of humiliating any member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. According to him, the Appellants as well as the complainant happen to be members are of the RPI Political party. Assuming the language used in the posts on whatsapp is derogatory, it cannot be said to have been posted with an intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. It is just that the complainant was annoyed with the Appellants taking some decisions without consulting her which led to the exchange of the messages. The intent therefore is absent. Learned APP for the State submitted that the Appellants have not co-operated with the investigation and the bar of Section 18 of the said Act will be attracted in the present case. He submitted that for the reasons mentioned by the Appellate Court, this is not a ft case for grant of anticipatory bail. 3 Of 4 Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that they are willing to co-operate with the investigation but as there is no protection in their favour, they apprehend that they will be arrested forthwith. That was the only reason according to them that they did not present themselves before the Investigating Ofcer. Prima facie I fnd substance in the contention of the Appellants that the ofence under Section 3(1)(R) is not made out. Issue notice to the complainant, returnable on 24.08.2021. In addition to the Court's notice, the Investigating Ofcer to inform the complainant about the next date of hearing. The Appellants in my opinion deserve to be granted interim protection. In the event the Appellants are arrested in connection with C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane, they shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. The Appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or contact, threaten or infuence the complainant in any manner. The Appellants in the meantime to co-operate with the investigation and present themselves before the Investigating Ofcer on 14th, 16th and 18th August, 2021 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. List the matter on 24.08.2021. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 6: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Mr.Vijay S. Thakur, for the Appellants. Mr.N.B. Patil, APP for State. Smt.Apeksha Dalvi - Respondent No.2 present. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2021 P.C. The matter pertains to the assignment of Hon'ble Anuja Prabhudessai, J. On 12/08/2021, the matter was listed before this Court in view of the office order. The complainant appeared and mentioned the matter. The matter be placed before appropriate Court on 25/08/2021. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: Megha 11_apeal _574_2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. Vijay S. Thakur with Mr. R.S. Deshpande for the Appellants. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2021. P.C.:- It is stated that matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Registry to verify and place it before appropriate Court. Stand over to 07/09/2021. Interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) MEGHA Digitally signed by Date: 2021.09.01 14:29:07 S PARAB

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ....APPELLANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mrs.Prabha Badadare i/b Vijay Thakur for Appellant Ms. P.N.Dabholkar, APP for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 7th September, 2021 P.C. : The Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Court. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 FAROOQ SATTAR DALVI AND ANOTHER )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT Mr.R.S.Deshpande a/w. Mr.Vijay Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J. DATE : 28th APRIL 2022 P.C. : 1 Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the appellant. Vide order dated 12th August 2021 this Court had granted interim protection which is continued from time to time. Let the interim protection so granted be continued till the next date. 2 Stand over to 16th June 2022. (V. G. BISHT, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi & Anr. ….Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 22nd DECEMBER, 2022 P.C. : The learned counsel for the appellants states that he will supply a spare copy within a period of two days from today. Once the spare copy is supplied, issue fresh notice to the respondent No.2, returnable on 8.2.2023. Interim order granted vide order dated 12.8.2021 to continue till then. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE 10:38:05 +0530

Order - Status 17: 1 of 1 16-apeal-574-21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 __________ __________ Farooq Sattar Dalvi & Anr. ..Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Vijay S. Thakur for Appellants. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 8 FEBRUARY 2023 PC : Await service on the Respondent No.2. Stand over to 29/03/2023. Interim order granted earlier to continue till the next date. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Gokhale

Order - Status 19: 27.Apeal.574.2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and another Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Adv.R.S.Deshpande with Vijay Thakur, Advocates for Appellant. Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, APP, for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12th June 2023 Office note indicates that notice was issued to Respondent no.2 on 16th January 2023. Service report is awaited. It is noticed that this appeal is pending in this Court since long. Hence concerned Police Station is directed to take steps to intimate/serve Respondent no.2. Stand over to 5th July 2023. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, to continue till then. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST PC :

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. Respondents Mr. R.S. Deshpande i/by Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : th 5 JULY, 2023. PER COURT : Learned APP on instructions submit that the intimation about the hearing of this Appeal has been given to Respondent No.2. However, she has requested for time as she is undergoing some treatment. This Appeal is pending in this Court since 2021. By way of last chance the Appeal is adjourned till 12th July, 2023. Stand over to 12th July, 2023. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Digitally signed by SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Date: 2023.07.07 10:53:40 +0530

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. R.S. Deshpande a/w Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for Appellant. …. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Saili Dhuru, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.s CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12 th JULY, 2023. P.C.:- Learned APP has tendered report from the concerned Police Station indicate that the intimation be given to the complainant and request is made by the complainant for providing legal aid. Report is taken on record. Learned Ms. Saili Dhuru is appointed to represent for Respondent No.2. Stand over to 19th July, 2023. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents Mr.R. S. Deshpande a/w Mr.Vijay S. Thakur Advocate for Appellants. Ms. Saili Dhuru Advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. …. …. ETHAPE DNYANESHWAR ASHOK Digitally signed by ETHAPE ASHOK Date: 2023.07.20 17:32:17 +0530 CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 19th JULY, 2023. P.C.:- This is an Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act"). The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 10th July 2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan rejecting the application for anticipatory bail preferred by Appellants in connection with C.R. No. I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane City on 20th June 2021. The FIR was registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. D.A.Ethape 11-APEAL-574-2021.doc The case of the prosecution is that, the first informant is the office bearer of political party and belongs to Scheduled Caste. She is also member of Thane District Rural Whats APP group. The accused are also member of the same political party and whats-app group. The accused posted messages on those whats-app groups which was derogatory nature. Appellant No.2 belongs to scheduled caste. Hence, offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) of the Atrocities Act cannot be attracted against him. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail has observed that, Section 3(1)(w) is not attracted in this case. However, the application was rejected on that ground that Section 3(1)(r) is attracted qua the appellant No.1. The offence under Section 354(D) of IPC is bailable. Learned Advocate for Appellant submitted that, neither Section 354(D) of IPC nor the provision of Atrocities Act invoked against the appellants are attracted in this case. All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the said Act indicate that the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation must be with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The whats-app messages posted were not with the object of humiliating any member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Appellants as well as the complainant happen to be members of same political party. Assuming the language used in the posts on whats-app is derogatory, it cannot be said to have been posted with an intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. The complainant was annoyed with the Appellants taking some decisions without consulting her which led to exchange of messages. The intent therefore is absent. Learned APP and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the nature of message posted by the accused was derogatory and sent with a view to insult and humiliate the complainant as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Prima facie offences are made out and the Appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. It appears that, the alleged message was on account of animosity between Appellants and the complainant. Appellants as well as complainant are members of the same party and same whats-app group. In any case, the offences under the Atrocities Act cannot be applied against Appellant No.2 as he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Section 354(D) of the IPC relates to offence of stalking. Prima facie it is debatable whether the said provision can be applied in the present case. Section 3(1)(r) of Atrocities Act, provides that, whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Case of the complainant is that, message was sent on whats-app group. The record does not indicate that, the alleged message was forwarded to intentionally insult or intimidate the complainant because she was belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In these circumstances, bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act would not be an impediment to grant relief sought in this Appeal. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2021 is allowed. (ii) Interim order dated 12th August 2021 is confirmed. (iii) Impugned Order dated 10th July 2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1101 of 2021 is set aside. (iv) In the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane, City, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount. (v) Appeal stands disposed off. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4724 OF 2005 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4723 OF 2005 ........................................................... OFFICE NOTES, OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF CORAM, APPEARANCES, COURT'S COURT'S OR JUDGES ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AND REGISTRAR'S ORDERS ........................................................... Smt S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for the Applicant. Shri S.S.Patwardhan for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2006. P.C.: 1.The Respondent No.5 is dead. Name of the Respondent No.5 is permitted to be deleted. The other Respondents are duly served. Application is opposed by the Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6. In view of the averments made in paragraph Nos.2 to 4 of the Application, sufficient cause is made out. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). JUDGE

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTON CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.648 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s Satyabhama Ashok Jadhavar .. Respondent Ms.U.V.Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 30th August, 2010. P.C. Learned APP is directed to supply spare copy within two weeks from today, failing which appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. If the spare copy is supplied by the learned APP, office to issue notice to the Respondent, returnable within eight weeks thereafter. Stand over for eight weeks. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Satyabhama Ashok Jadhavar. ... Respondent Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for the Appellant/ State. None for the Respondent. CORAM : : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : : 25th October, 2010. P.C. 1 Office remark indicates that warrant of arrest is still unexecuted qua the Respondent. The appeal pertains to year 2006. Sufficient time has been given to the Appellant – State to serve the Respondent. By way of indulgence and last opportunity, we give ten weeks time to the Appellant to execute the warrant of arrest so as to comply with requirement of Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Failure to comply with the conditional order will result in dismissal of appeal without further reference to the Court. 2 Copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, Home Department for information and necessary action against the concerned officials. [ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.648 OF 2006 ...... ...... The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Versus Satyabhama Ashok Jadhavar ...Respondent Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for Appellant/State. None for Respondent. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- JANUARY 10, 2011. P.C. Wrongly on Board. On account of the conditional order dated 25th October, 2010, the Appeal is already dismissed for non-prosecution. Removed from the Board. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4622 OF 2005 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ........ OF 2005 State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Bharat Narayan Patil & Ors. .... Respondents Ms A.S. Pai, APP, for the Applicant. Shri Sudatta Patil for the Respondents. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: JULY 04, 2007 P.C: Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Taking into consideration the medical evidence as well as the testimony of the eye-witnesses to the incident, prima facie it appears that the accused exceeded in the exercise of their private defence and, therefore, the matter requires consideration. Hence, leave is granted in terms of Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 24-2-2005 passed in Sessions Case No.151 of 2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli. Accordingly, the appeal stands admitted. Action under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. to follow. (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/J7cag4622.5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2005 Babasaheb Ramrao Patil .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Jay Shekhar for the Petitioner. Ms A.S. Pai, APP, for the State. Shri Sudatta Patil for the Respondents Nos.2 to 5. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: JULY 04, 2007 P.C: In view of the Appeal filed by the prosecution against the impugned judgment having been admitted, question of entertaining the present revision application does not arise. The revision application, therefore, is dismissed. (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/J7cag4622.5