Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 534 (BOM)

Amol v. State Of Maharashtra

2023-02-20

ABHAY S.WAGHWASE, VIBHA KANKANWADI

body2023
JUDGMENT VIBHA KANKANWADI,J. - All these Appeals have been filed by the original accused Nos.1, 5 and 4 as arrayed in the First Information Report (for short "FIR"), under Sec. 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "Atrocities Act"), to challenge the order of rejecting their applications under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by learned Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Ahmednagar. Accused No.1 Amol Babasaheb Sonawne filed application Exhibit-18 in Special Case No.141 of 2022, which came to be rejected on 15/11/2022 by the learned Special Judge. Accused No.5 - Sanket Vitthal Somwanshi filed application Exhibit-3 in Special Case No.141 of 2022, which came to be rejected on 29/8/2022 and accused No.4 - Arun Narad Saha filed application Exhibit-13 in Special Case No.141 of 2022, which came to be rejected on 14/9/2022. 2. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the appellants in respective Appeals, learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, appointed through Legal Aid. 3. Learned Advocates appearing for the appellants have vehemently submitted that perusal of the FIR, which is lodged by present respondent No.2, who is the mother of the deceased Pravin, would show that she is not the eye witness to the incident, however, she depended upon the information supplied by one Amol Borde, who was stated to be along with the deceased at the relevant time. There was nothing to indicate that the incident took place merely because the deceased was the member of scheduled caste. Even the tenor used in the FIR does not attract any of the offences described in Sec. 3 of the Atrocities Act. The FIR is lodged after delay of about a day and three hours from the occurrence. The said delay is inordinate, unnatural and unexplained. Now the entire investigation is over and charge-sheet is also filed. All the accused have been arrested on 28/4/2022 and since then they are in jail. As the entire investigation is over, their further custody is not required. They have permanent place of abode and they are ready to abide by the terms of the bail. The appellants have cooperated in the investigation. 4. All the learned Advocates appearing for the appellants have submitted that from the charge-sheet it can be seen that there was only one eye witness i.e. Amol Borde. They have permanent place of abode and they are ready to abide by the terms of the bail. The appellants have cooperated in the investigation. 4. All the learned Advocates appearing for the appellants have submitted that from the charge-sheet it can be seen that there was only one eye witness i.e. Amol Borde. He was not attacked at all by any of the accused persons. He was close friend of the deceased and therefore, possibility of giving interested version cannot be ruled out. Even though Amol Borde is claiming that he has tried to intervene and even to snatch the axe, it does not show that it has caused any injury to him. According to his statement under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was a single blow to the head of the deceased with iron rod, which has caused oozing of blood and the said rod has been discovered under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The description does not say that blood stains were found on the iron rod. The medical officer does not say that there was any such injury which can be said to have caused by iron rod. The allegations will also not attract the ingredients for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as the intention or motive is missing. It has been stated that in the afternoon when the deceased and his friend Amol Borde had gone to the shop of accused N.4 - Arun for purchasing Vada-pav, there was altercation between deceased and accused No.4. At that time, it is stated that accused No.1 along with 4 to 5 others gathered there. They had assaulted deceased with kicks and fist blows as well as wooden log. At that time Amol Borde had intervened and thereafter deceased and Amol purchased four plates of Bhaje and ten Pav (bread). It is then stated that cost of the same was Rs.100.00 but in the scuffle the cooking oil spilled from the vessel and therefore, accused No.4 had charged Rs.100.00 more. At that time deceased had abused accused No.4 and threatened that he would see accused No.4, and then the deceased as well as Amol Borde left that place. This indicates that the dispute was over at that point of time. At that time deceased had abused accused No.4 and threatened that he would see accused No.4, and then the deceased as well as Amol Borde left that place. This indicates that the dispute was over at that point of time. But then Amol discloses that when they started going from the premises of the godown of closed company, they were caught by accused No.1, accused Amol Salve, servant of accused No.4 and other two persons, who were holding axe, iron rod, wooden log with them. It is then stated that accused No.1 had assaulted deceased with iron rod on his head, as a result of which deceased fell down and blood started oozing out of his nose and head. It is then stated that Amol Borde was asking them as to why they were assaulting him. At that time friend of accused No.1 started to assault deceased with the help of axe, at that time he was obstructed by Amol Borde but still accused Amol Salve assaulted deceased with iron rod on the head as well as legs of the deceased. It is submitted that these facts would disclose that it had happened in a spur of moment and there was no intention to eliminate deceased. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for original accused No.4 has further submitted that accused No.4 was not even present at the place of incident where the other accused alleged to have assaulted deceased. Whatever dispute had taken place in the shop of accused No.4 - appellant in Criminal Appeal No.880 of 2022, it was treated by them that the quarrel is over. There was nothing for accused No.4 to drag the matter further. He has been falsely implicated. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for original accused No.5 has further submitted that no specific role is attributed to accused No.5 and nothing has been recovered from him. The name of accused No.5 has been taken by the other witnesses who were alleged to have been there in the shop of accused No.4. 7. Learned Advocates appearing for all the appellants further submitted that under such circumstance, the allegations do not require further custody of the appellants. All these facts were not considered by the learned trial Judge while rejecting the applications filed by the appellants and therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 8. 7. Learned Advocates appearing for all the appellants further submitted that under such circumstance, the allegations do not require further custody of the appellants. All these facts were not considered by the learned trial Judge while rejecting the applications filed by the appellants and therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 8. Learned APP as well as learned Advocate for respondent No.2 - informant, appointed through Legal Aid, have strongly objected the Appeals. It is submitted that since the member of scheduled caste is murdered, the seriousness in the case has to be considered. Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 placed reliance on Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and others, (2020) 4 SCC 727 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that seriousness in such offences has to be given prime consideration as the Special Enactment is enacted to protect the persons who belong to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Learned Advocate also points out the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chunnilal Alias Chunni Singh, (2009) 12 SCC 649 . He also points out the decision in Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan and another, 2021 SCC OnLine 1010, wherein it has been observed that Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 15A of the Act confers a statutory right on the victim or their dependents to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including a bail proceeding. It has been further observed that, atrocities against members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are not a thing of the past. They continue to be a reality in our society even today. Hence the statutory provisions which have been enacted by Parliament as a measure of protecting the constitutional rights of persons belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes must be complied with and enforced conscientiously. Learned Advocate points out that no notice in respect of the bail application by accused No.4 was given to the informant. Hence the statutory provisions which have been enacted by Parliament as a measure of protecting the constitutional rights of persons belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes must be complied with and enforced conscientiously. Learned Advocate points out that no notice in respect of the bail application by accused No.4 was given to the informant. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has relied on Nitu Kumar vs. Gulveer and another, (2022) 9 SCC 222 , Prashant Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , Panchanan Mishra vs. Digambar Mishra and others, (2005) 3 SCC 143 , Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and other, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and others, (1987) 2 SCC 684 , in order to canvass his submissions that the gravity of the offence, nature of allegations, prima facie reasonable ground or facts against the accused will have to be considered by the Courts. Those factors have been considered by the trial Court and therefore, there is no necessity to interfere. 9. Before we consider the merits of the Appeals, certain facts are required to be mentioned. When the FIR was lodged on 27/4/2022, at that time the offences under the Atrocities Act were not invoked. The offence was registered only under Ss. 302, 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sec. s under the Atrocities came to be added on 9/6/2022. General diary details about the same have been produced. It appear that after adding those Sec. s, the District Superintendent of Police has issued order regarding handing over of the investigation to the police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police on the same day and thereafter report of the same appears to have been given on 14/6/2022 to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as Special Judge under the Atrocities Act, Ahmednagar. The investigation from 27/4/2022 to 9/6/2022 has been carried out by Assistant Police Inspector, MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar. The charge-sheet has been presented before the Special Judge on 15/7/2022. The investigation from 27/4/2022 to 9/6/2022 has been carried out by Assistant Police Inspector, MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar. The charge-sheet has been presented before the Special Judge on 15/7/2022. When this fact was noted, the investigating officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police was called, because what was transpiring was that he has not started the investigation since beginning or has not reiterated the investigation that was made but he started from the point when the said Sec. s under the Atrocities Act got added. We could not get a proper explanation from him. Learned Advocate Mr. Ostwal has then pointed out the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chunnilal Alias Chunni Singh, (2009) 12 SCC 649 . In this case also offences were under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Atrocities Act. It was found that the investigation has been carried out by the investigating officer in absence of authorization by competent authority and after considering all the facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- "The provisions in Sec. 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Sec. 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an offence under Sec. 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Sec. 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for noninvestigation of the offence under Sec. 3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in an appropriate court for the offences punishable under the IPC notwithstanding investigation and the charge-sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Sec. 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence." 10. No doubt, in the present case the facts are slightly different. Here, at the fag end of the investigation it is realized that the offences under the Atrocities Act are made out and therefore, the above course was undertaken and therefore the charge-sheet is filed by the police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police which is as per Rule 7 of the Act. Here, at the fag end of the investigation it is realized that the offences under the Atrocities Act are made out and therefore, the above course was undertaken and therefore the charge-sheet is filed by the police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police which is as per Rule 7 of the Act. In regard to this situation, we would like to say that the investigating officer ought to have been more vigilant. It is not a case that he should start the investigation from the point it was left by the earlier investigating officer. The tenor, scope and purpose of Rule 7 to the Atrocities Act should have been considered by the investigating officer. The intention of the legislature in making such provision was to give investigation of the offences under Sec. 3 of the Act to senior police officers taking into consideration the principle to protect the rights of the oppressed Sec. of the society. Under such situation, it would be the endeavour of the investigating officer not to leave any kind of lacuna in the investigation as well as the procedure that is undertaken. The benefit of such faulty investigation should not go to the accused. 11. Here in this case, since beginning when the FIR was lodged, it was for the police officer to consider the caste of the informant and to see whether it is giving rise to any offence under such Special Enactment. That exercise appears to have not been done in this case. In catena of Judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the accused cannot take benefit of lacunas in the investigation. We are at a primary stage and therefore, though this glaring point has cropped up, yet the advantage of the same cannot be given to the appellants in view of the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chunnilal Alias Chunni Singh (supra), because here the case is also under Sec. 302 and other Sec. s under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, from both the angles it is required to be seen, as to whether the learned Special Judge was justified in rejecting the bail applications filed by the appellants. 12. Therefore, from both the angles it is required to be seen, as to whether the learned Special Judge was justified in rejecting the bail applications filed by the appellants. 12. Further, before going to consider the merits another situation has arisen which is of wide importance, as this Court is coming across various such orders by Special Judges under the Atrocities Act that they are not following / observing the mandatory requirement under Sec. 15-A of the Atrocities Act. Sec. 15-A of the Atrocities Act gives statutory right to the victim to get the knowledge about the proceedings before the Court including bail application. 13. In Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan and another (supra), it has been observed that victims are often relegated to the role of being a spectator in the criminal justice system. The victims of crime often face hurdles in accessing justice from the stage of filing the complaint to the conclusion of the trial and therefore, those rights of the victims have been acknowledged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as those are incorporated under Sec. 15-A of the Atrocities Act. In connection with the said provision, in the aforesaid decision, it has been held in Paragraph Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 18 as under:- "13. Sec. 15A of the SC/ST Act contains important provisions that safeguard the rights of the victims of caste-based atrocities and witnesses. Sub-sec. s (3) and (5) of Sec. 15A specifically make the victim or their dependent an active stakeholder in the criminal proceedings. These provisions enable a member of the marginalized caste to effectively pursue a case and counteract the effects of defective investigations. Subsec. s (1) to (5) of Sec. 15A are extracted below: "15A(1) It shall be the duty and responsibility of the State to make arrangements for the protection of victims, their dependents, and witnesses against any kind of intimidation or coercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence. (2) A victim shall be treated with fairness, respect and dignity and with due regard to any special need that arises because of the victims age or gender or educational disadvantage or poverty. (3) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act. (3) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act. (4) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to apply to the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, as the case may be, to summon parties for production of any documents or material, witnesses or examine the persons present. (5) A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing." (emphasis added) 14. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 15A confers a statutory right on the victim or their dependents to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including a bail proceeding. In addition, sub-sec. (3) requires a Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government to inform the victim about any proceeding under the Act. Sub-sec. (3) confers a right to a prior notice, this being evident from the use of the expression "reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including any bail proceeding". Sub-sec. (5) provides for a right to be heard to the victim or to a dependent. The expression "dependent" is defined in Sec. 2(bb) thus: "2(bb) "dependent" means the spouse, children, parents, brother and sister of the victim, who are dependent wholly or mainly on such victim for his support and maintenance;" 15. The provisions of sub-sec. (3) which stipulate the requirement of notice and of sub-sec. (5) which confers a right to be heard must be construed harmoniously. The requirement of issuing a notice facilitates the right to be heard." "18. The finding of the Gujarat High Court that the requirement of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent under Sec. 15A(3), in order to provide them an opportunity of being heard, is mandatory, finds echo in multiple High Court decisions 13 including a decision of the Rajasthan High Court 14. We find ourselves in agreement with the proposition and hold that sub-sec. s (3) and (5) of Sec. 15A are mandatory in nature." 14. We find ourselves in agreement with the proposition and hold that sub-sec. s (3) and (5) of Sec. 15A are mandatory in nature." 14. Further, it has been observed in Paragraph No.22 in the aforesaid decision of Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan and another (supra), that:- "22. We also emphasize that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 15A provides that a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent. This would entail that the notice is served upon victims or their dependents at the first or earliest possible instance. If undue delay is caused in the issuance of notice, the victim, or as the case may be, their dependents, would remain uninformed of the progress made in the case and it would prejudice their rights to effectively oppose the defense of the accused. It would also ultimately delay the bail proceedings or the trial, affecting the rights of the accused as well." 15. We are constrained to observe that, many Courts/ Special Judges are not following the said procedure which is in fact in derogation to the mandate of the law. Secondly, even if the notice is given, the order that is passed on the bail application is many times silent about the submissions/ say put forth by the victim. When the statutory right is given of being heard to the victim, then the natural corollary would be that those submissions which have been put forth by the victim should be reflected in the order by the learned Special Judge. We had, therefore, called the copy of relevant Roznama of the Special Case No.141 of 2022, which reflects that as regards the bail application Exhibit 18 which was filed by accused No.1, notice was issued to the informant. She appeared before the Court. However, it appears that adjournment was sought to file say on behalf of the prosecution, as well as the informant on the adjourned date i.e. 12/10/2022. On 19/10/2022, Presiding Officer was on leave. The matter was taken up on 21/10/2022, on which date the prosecution filed say but informant sought adjournment. Thereafter it appears that till the application was decided, the informant - victim did not appear and she was not heard at all. The impugned order below Exhibit-18 also does not say that the Special Judge had heard the victim - informant. Same is the case as regards the other two appellants. Thereafter it appears that till the application was decided, the informant - victim did not appear and she was not heard at all. The impugned order below Exhibit-18 also does not say that the Special Judge had heard the victim - informant. Same is the case as regards the other two appellants. As regards accused No.5 is concerned, he has given application for bail at Exhibit-3. Notice was issued to the informant and on the day of appearance she filed application for adjournment and in the meantime bail application was moved by accused No.6. Notice in respect of that application was also issued to the informant but it appears that she never filed say. Again, in the meantime accused No.4 i.e. one of the appellant here, made application for bail and there is no endorsement that notice in respect of application Exhibit-13 was ever issued to the informant. The impugned orders in other two Appeals are also silent on this aspect of issuing notice to the informant and giving an opportunity to her to make submissions. Certainly, in these cases the applications have been rejected and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the informant. But the fact remains is that the learned Special Judge has not adhered to the procedure that is contemplated in bail applications in which the offence under the Atrocities Act is involved. Note also can be taken of the decision of Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh and others vs. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321 . In fact in this case there was no question of offences under the Atrocities Act, yet, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the rights of the victim to be heard and to participate in the proceedings before the Courts. Note has been taken in respect of the provisions under the Atrocities Act which make the legal obligation to hear the victim and then it has been reiterated that the rights of the victim are totally independent, incomparable, and not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the presence of "State' in the proceedings, would not tantamount to according a hearing to a victim of the crime. Under such circumstance, when such wide rights are given to the informant / victim and those are acknowledged, it is mandatory on the part of the Special Judges to issue notice to the victims / informants, as the case may be in view of Sec. 15-A(3) of the Atrocities Act and then to proceed to hear them under Sec. 15-A(5) of the Atrocities Act. 16. Now, turning towards the facts of the case, the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 is based on the information supplied to her by Amol Borde who was with the deceased at that time. The statement of said witness would disclose that the incident has takenplace at two places, one is the shop / Wada-pav center of accused No.4 and the other is near the godown of company. Amol has stated that since he as well as deceased had not brought tiffin, they had gone to the Wada-pav center of accused No.4 at about 12.00 noon on 26/4/2022. They made inquiry about the rates of Bhaje plate. It was told by accused No.4 that one plate is for Rs.20.00. Deceased objected stating that Bhaje plate is for Rs.15.00 and why accused No.4 is charging Rs.20.00. Thereafter accused No.4 abused him and there was heat exchange of words as well as abuses. Accused No.4 then raised his hand to assault deceased and at that time in his hand there was perforated ladle (Zara). Deceased tried to snatch perforated ladle from the hands of accused No.4 and at that point of time accused Nos.1, 5, one Amol Salve, Babdya and the servant of accused No.4 gathered there and they started assaulting deceased by kicks and fist blows as well as stick. Amol Borde rescued the deceased and in the said process the cooking oil from the vessel spilled from it. Deceased and Amol Borde purchased four plates of Bhaje and 10 bread (Pav). Accused No.4 charged him Rs.200.00 which was inclusive of the damage of the cooking oil. Deceased got annoyed and therefore, by abusing him said that he would see accused No.4. They both had taken the parcel. That means they had intention to eat it at a different place and therefore, they started on the motorcycle. This part of the facts does not disclose prima facie that the deceased was assaulted only because he was the member of the scheduled caste. They both had taken the parcel. That means they had intention to eat it at a different place and therefore, they started on the motorcycle. This part of the facts does not disclose prima facie that the deceased was assaulted only because he was the member of the scheduled caste. Though witness Amol Borde says that accused Nos.4, 5 and others knew deceased as well as Amol himself, he does not say that they had the knowledge about the caste of the deceased. The said incident at the Wada-pav center, at the most would disclose the offence under Sec. 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. From the statement of Amol Borde, it can be gathered that around 12.20 p.m. they both, i.e. deceased and Amol were proceeding from the internal road in MIDC and they were intercepted by accused Nos.1, 5, Amol Salve, Gupta - servant of accused No.4 and Babdya. They were holding axe, iron rod and wooden stick. Amol Borde says that after he himself and deceased got down from the vehicle, accused No.1 gave blow of iron rod on the head of the deceased, as a result of which deceased fell down and blood started oozing from his nose and head. Though Amol has tried to intervene, it is stated that accused Gupta was about to give blow of axe to the deceased but that was held by Amol Borde, still by giving jerk to him, Gupta managed to assault deceased. Amol Salve assaulted by iron rod, accused No.5 - Sanket and Babdya had assaulted deceased by wooden sticks. All of them were giving threat to kill deceased at that time. Thereafter all of them left the place. Amol Borde states that he went to the godown where the work was going on and informed the incident to his friends. The ambulance was called and deceased was taken to hospital. However, deceased was declared dead around 7.00 a.m. on 27/4/2022 i.e. on the next day. It is to be noted that his statement has been recorded on 27/4/2022. Amol Borde states that he went to the godown where the work was going on and informed the incident to his friends. The ambulance was called and deceased was taken to hospital. However, deceased was declared dead around 7.00 a.m. on 27/4/2022 i.e. on the next day. It is to be noted that his statement has been recorded on 27/4/2022. No doubt as regards the second incident is concerned, there is no statement about the presence of accused No.4, however, at this stage the prosecution story is that since the earlier incident had taken place with accused No.4, that common intention was hatched up at his place and all these persons had then gone to the place of second incident for execution of the plan. Statement of witness Nilesh Pund, Sushan Zaware are on the same line in respect of the incident that had taken place in front of Wada-pav center. 18. The next evidence in line is the postmortem report which shows the probable cause of death, fracture of skull and internal injury to brain due to chop wound over the head by sharp edged heavy object. It would be clarification that would be given by the medical officer as to whether the said injury is possible by blow of iron rod and then of the axe at the same place. 19. While considering the bail application the decisions those have been relied by the learned Advocate for respondent No.2 are definitely required to be considered. But at the same time, we are also required to consider the role attributed to each one of the accused persons. Here, whatever evidence has been gathered would show prima facie case against accused No.1 i.e. Sonu fitter - appellant in Criminal Appeal No.919 of 2022. 20. As regards accused No.5 - Sanket Somwanshi, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.913 of 2022 is concerned, his presence has been shown but even Amol Borde has stated that he used iron rod to assault deceased. He has not stated the portion of the body of the deceased which received the assault. In this case, axe, two iron rods, two wooden logs have been seized under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act from accused Nos.1 to 3. Nothing has been recovered from accused No.5 - Sanket Somwanshi. 21. He has not stated the portion of the body of the deceased which received the assault. In this case, axe, two iron rods, two wooden logs have been seized under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act from accused Nos.1 to 3. Nothing has been recovered from accused No.5 - Sanket Somwanshi. 21. Next is the case as regards accused No.4 - Arun Narad Saha, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.880 of 2022, and as aforesaid his role ended to the incident in front of his shop. At this stage there is nothing on record to show that any conspiracy was hatched up between the accused persons inter-se and then all other accused left the said place and followed the deceased. 22. It would take long time to stand trial and therefore, case was made out to consider the bail applications filed by accused Nos.4 and 5. However, as regards accused No.1 is concerned, there is evidence and therefore for him no case is made out for releasing him on bail. Hence, Criminal Appeal No.999 of 2022 deserves to be rejected, whereas Criminal Appeal Nos.913 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.880 of 2022 deserve to be allowed. Hence the following order:- ORDER (I) Criminal Appeal No.919 of 2022 stands dismissed. (II) Criminal Appeal No.913 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.880 of 2022 stand allowed. (III) The order passed below application Exhibit-3 in Special Case No.141 of 2022 dtd. 29/8/2022 and order passed below application Exhibit-13 in Special Case No.141 of 2022 dtd. 14/9/2022 by the learned Special Judge under the Atrocities Act and Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Ahmednagar, stand set aside. Both the said applications stand allowed. (IV) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.913 of 2022 - Sanket Vitthal Somwanshi and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.880 of 2022 - Arun Narad Saha, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.289 of 2022 registered with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 341, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, be released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000.00 each with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000.00 each. 302, 341, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, be released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000.00 each with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000.00 each. (V) The Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.913 of 2022 and 880 of 2022 shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. (VIII) They shall not indulge in any criminal activity. (IX) Bail before the Trial Court.