Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Murder and Atrocities Case Due to Lack of Identification and Long Incarceration. Appellant not identified in identification parade and had been in custody for over one year, leading to grant of bail under Section 14(2) of SC/ST Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Yash @ Gotya Pandurang Mane, filed an appeal under Section 14(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 30.05.2020 passed by the learned Special Court, Satara, which rejected his bail application in Special Case No. 39 of 2019. The case arose from C.R. No. 157 of 2019 registered at Shahupuri Police Station, Satara, for offences under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Special Act. The appellant was arrested on 15.05.2019 and had been in custody for over one year. The appellant contended that the FIR was lodged with malafide intention, that the offence under Section 3(1) of the Special Act was not made out, and that he was not identified in the identification parade by the eye witness. The appellant also relied on the High Power Committee decision for temporary bail due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court, after perusing the chargesheet and annexures, noted that there were eye witnesses but one witness, Sumeet Bansode, in his supplementary statement, did not identify the appellant. Considering the lack of identification and the period of incarceration, the court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant on certain conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 14(2) - Appellant sought bail for offences under IPC and Special Act - Court considered that appellant was not identified in identification parade and had been in custody for over one year - Held that appellant is entitled to bail on conditions (Paras 2-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, given the lack of identification and prolonged custody.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The order dated 30.05.2020 passed by the learned Special Court, Satara, is quashed and set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on executing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The appellant shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses and shall attend the trial regularly. The appellant shall furnish his address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall not change residence without prior permission. The appellant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed for trial. The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity. The appellant shall not contact the complainant or any witness. The appellant shall cooperate with the trial. The appellant shall not leave India without prior permission. The appellant shall deposit his passport, if any. The appellant shall report to the police station once a month. The appellant shall abide by any other conditions imposed by the trial court.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 14(2) of SC/ST Act
  • consideration of identification parade
  • long incarceration
  • COVID-19 pandemic
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (04) 46

Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2020

2021-04-05

S. S. Shinde, Manish Pitale

Umesh Mankapure, Vaibhav R. Gaikwad, A.S. Pai, Janhavi S. Karnik

Yash @ Gotya Pandurang Mane

State of Maharashtra, Amol Shrirang Bansode

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against rejection of bail application under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST Act.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought quashing and setting aside of order rejecting bail and grant of bail.

Filing Reason

Appellant was arrested for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act and his bail was rejected by Special Court.

Previous Decisions

Special Court, Satara rejected bail application vide order dated 30.05.2020 in Special Case No. 39 of 2019.

Issues

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST Act? Whether the lack of identification in parade and long incarceration justify bail?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued FIR was malafide, false, and concocted; offence under Section 3(1) not made out; appellant not identified in parade; no evidence against him; in custody for over one year; permanent resident; relied on High Power Committee decision for COVID-19 temporary bail. Respondent-State opposed bail.

Ratio Decidendi

Bail can be granted under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST Act when the accused is not identified in the identification parade and has been in custody for a long period, and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing.

Judgment Excerpts

Upon careful perusal of the accompaniments of the chargesheet it is noticed that there are eye witnesses to the incident. One witness namely Sumeet Bansode in his supplementary statement stated that... The appellant was arrested on 15.05.2019, and he is in jail for more than one year and as such further custody of the appellant is not warranted.

Procedural History

FIR registered on 15.05.2019; appellant arrested same day; chargesheet filed; case numbered Special Case No. 39 of 2019; bail application (Exhibit-8) rejected by Special Court on 30.05.2020; present appeal filed under Section 14(2) of SC/ST Act; appeal reserved on 17.03.2021; judgment pronounced on 05.04.2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 14(2), Section 3(2)(v), Section 3(2)(va)
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302, Section 504, Section 506, Section 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Preemption Decree Default Case – Stay of Execution Did Not Extend Time for Deposit. Interpretation of Order XX Rule 14 CPC Concerning Automatic Extension of Time After Stay.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Murder and Atrocities Case Due to Lack of Identification and Long Incarceration. Appellant not identified in identification parade and had been in custody for over one year, leading to grant of bail under S...