Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Bombay High Court
Jalinder Murlidhar Naik And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 May, 2020
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
Apeal.196.20.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2020 Jalinder Murlidhar Naik & Anr. …Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Hrishikesh A. Mundargi a/w Mr. Rohan Hogle i/b Mr. Anshul Sontakke for the Appellants Mr. S. R. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. FRIDAY, 8th MAY 2020 P.C. : 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2 By this appeal, the appellant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. I-24/2020 registered with the Narpoli Police Station, Thane for the alleged offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 3(1) (h) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant states that pursuant to the order dated 18th February 2020 passed by this Court, the respondent No.2SQ Pathan 1/4 ::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 06:03:51 ::: Apeal.196.20.doc has been served by private notice and an affidavit to that effect is filed. It appears from the order dated 12th March 2020 that spare copies were not filed, pursuant to which, time was granted to file spare copies. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in view of the lock-down, spare copies could not be supplied, pursuant to which, court notice could not be issued to respondent No. 2. 4 Since filing of spare copies at this juncture is not possible, the same to be filed once office work is restored, so as to enable the appellants to supply spare copies for issuance of notice to respondent No.2. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations as against the appellants are false and baseless. He submits that the appellant No. 2 is a relative of the complainant and belonging to the same caste as the complainant. Whereas, the appellant No. 1 is the owner of a brick-kiln, where the complainant and others were working. He submits that neither the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, nor the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are applicable in the facts of the present case. He submits that the incident is an outcome of an altercation, which took place between the appellant No. 1 due to the loading of bricks in theSQ Pathan 2/4 ::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 06:03:51 ::: Apeal.196.20.doc truck, resulting in the applicant No. 1 slapping the complainant’s husband. He submits that there are no allegations that the complainant was threatened or any abusive language was used in the name of the caste. 6 Learned A.P.P seeks time. 7 In the meantime, considering the aforesaid, prima facie, a case is made out for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, the following order is passed : ORDER
(i) In the event of arrest, the appellants be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called;
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.
SQ Pathan 3/4 ::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 06:03:51 ::: Apeal.196.20.doc 8 Stand over to 3rd July 2020. 9 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed
by the Senior Private Secretary.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
SQ Pathan 4/4 ::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 06:03:51 :::