Sarjerao S/O. Gulabrao Dhamdhere vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 May, 2020
2. The appellant is apprehending the arrest in Crime No.282 of
2019 registered with Ghargaon Police Station, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar
for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code
and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. The first
information report has been lodged by present respondent No.2.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. L. S. Mahajan for appellant, learned
APP Mr. P. K. Lakhotia for respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr. S.
B. Ghatol Patil for respondent No.2. Perused the affidavit-in-reply along with
documents.
4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that
the learned Special Judge failed to consider the enmity between the applicant
and the informant. A complaint application has been filed by the present
appellant in respect of the property dispute. It was contended that there is a
Big house (Wada) of the forefathers of the appellant. It is now in dilapidated
condition. There was certain space behind the said Wada. When the family
-2-
::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:49:55 :::
2-Apeal-6-2020.odt
of respondent No.2 started levelling the land behind the Wada, it was
objected by the appellant so also a written complaint was filed on 08-09-
2015 to the Grampanchayat. However, the Grampanchayat with some
political motive had made entries in the name of the family of respondent
No.2. Therefore, a complaint application was then made by him to the
Collector. The informant got annoyed with the same and, in fact, application
under Section 14-G of the Maharashtra Grampanchayat Act was filed by the
appellant against the Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and the Gram Sewak of the
Grampanchayat. It was stated that all of them together had shown the open
space belonging to the appellant in the name of one Maruti Karbhari
Mundhe, Suresh Karbhari Mundhe and Pramod Rambhau Mundhe. It is
further stated that present respondent No.2 is the near friend of said Mundhe
family and by taking advantage of the caste of the informant false complaint
has been lodged and those two persons from Mundhe family whose name has
been taken in the application before Collector by the appellant are shown to
be the eye witnesses to the incident. In fact, these two witnesses by name
Mundhe were not even present when the incident had taken place.
Therefore, when the FIR is filed with mala fide intention, the learned Special
Judge ought not to have considered that there is bar for entertaining pre-
arrest bail applications in view of Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act.
-3-
::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:49:55 :::