Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed disapproval of a Bombay High Court order granting bail to two men accused of assaulting a Scheduled Caste man who later died, allegedly in connection with a land dispute. The bench hearing a petition filed by the deceased’s wife challenging the bail granted to the accused. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court reserved its order.

According to the petition, the complainant and her family belong to the Hindu Mahadeo Koli community and, in 2022, lived on land adjoining the accused persons’ property. The incident is alleged to have occurred in August 2022, when the complainant’s husband was attacked by six men using iron rods and sticks near a shop while he was taking their daughter to school.

Also Read: State Cannot Deny Regularisation Of Long-Serving Contract Staff Appointed On Sanctioned Posts Through Due Process; Legitimate Expectation Applies: Supreme Court

The petitioner claims she and other relatives rushed to the spot to intervene but were also assaulted, and that caste-based abuse was directed at them. The complaint further alleges that three accused, including the two respondents, humiliated the petitioner in public and used casteist slurs.

An FIR was registered under multiple provisions of the IPC, including Sections 302, 354, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 509 and the unlawful assembly-related provisions (143 to 149), as well as provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, including Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) and others.

In January 2023, the Special Court rejected the respondents’ plea for regular bail. They subsequently approached the Bombay High Court, which granted bail in March, citing—among other factors—the absence of clear material specifying which accused caused which injuries, and noting longstanding rivalry between the parties and bail granted to some co-accused.

Questioning the basis on which bail was granted, Justice Mehta observed: "What's the reason given by High Court? Specific allegations not there? How can bail be granted in such a case? There are 8 injuries and 6 assailants. Indiscriminate beating in the middle of the market. How does it expect? Eyewitnesses have photographic memory? They are suppose to measure the injuries?"

When counsel for the accused argued that the record did not clearly attribute individual injuries to specific assailants, Justice Mehta responded: "how can you expect an eyewitness to narrate that? Can that be a ground in such a case?"

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel told the court that one of the respondents had earlier spent around six months in custody and that charges had already been framed. At one point, Justice Nath directed the accused’s counsel: "You go back inside".

Also Read: Correction Of Khasra Number Via Limited Plaint Amendment Does Not Affect Cause Of Action: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rectification

The defence, however, highlighted that the accused had remained on bail for about three years without violating conditions, and contended that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. When the argument about the absence of injury-specific attribution was reiterated, Justice Mehta remarked: "it is not required when Sections 147, 148 and 149 apply...why specific act is required to be mentioned?"

The bench was also unpersuaded by the submission that no recoveries were made from the respondents, with Justice Mehta stating: "Recovery is only for corroboration". While reserving orders, the court noted that the informant—who has moved the Supreme Court—was herself an injured eyewitness.

Case Title: SHOBHA NAMDEV SONAVANE Versus SAMADHAN BAJIRAO SONVANE AND ORS.

Case No.: SLP(Crl) No. 12440/2023

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta