High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 907-appeal 409-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2025 1.Sunita Ananda Devsarkar 2.Dnyaneshwar Rameshrao Devsarkar.. AppellantsVersus1.The State Of Maharashtra2.Akash Ananta Waghmare.. RespondentsMr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate h/f Mr. Akshay D. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellants.Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No. 1.Mr. M. M. Parghane, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. ANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 374 OF 20251.Rajesh Rameshrao Kadam2.Yogesh Ramesh Deosarkar3.Nandkishor Anandrao Deosarkar.. AppellantsVersus1.The State Of Maharashtra2.Akash Ananta Waghmare.. RespondentsMr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate h/f Mr. Akshay D. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellants.Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No. 1.Mr. M. M. Parghane, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 1 of 7 2 907-appeal 409-2025.odt CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATED : 19th JUNE, 2025. P. C. :- .Heard learned advocate for the appellants, learned A.P.P. andlearned advocate for respondent No. 2.2.Criminal Appeal No. 374/2025 is filed by accused Nos. 1, 2 and3 seeking regular bail. They are arrested on 10.03.2025. They weresent to P.C.R. till 13.03.2025 and since then they are in M.C.R. AnotherCriminal Appeal No. 409/2025 is filed by accused Nos. 4 and 6 as perthe charge-sheet. They have approached seeking bail in the event oftheir arrest. A charge-sheet is also filed filed on 08.05.2025. Theappellants are seeking bail in connection with offence registered withPolice Station Himayatnagar, Nanded for the offence punishable underSections 333, 118 (2), 189(2), 191 (2), 189 (9), 324 (4), 296, 352,351 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “B.N.S.”) andunder Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “AtrocitiesAct”).3.The informant in the FIR alleged that, the present appellants andother accused and the persons with him and relatives assaulted him. Anincident started on 08.03.2025 where accused No. 3 namely 2 of 7 3 907-appeal 409-2025.odtNandkishor asked the informant as to why he abused him. On that,there was a scuffle. After some time the quarrel was settled at theintervention of one Devidas Waghmare. However, on 09.03.2025 it isthe informant who went to the accused persons to ask as to why theybeaten him. At that time, again scuffle took place. The informanthimself stated that, he and his friends beaten accused persons. Onthat, the accused No. 3 namely Nandkishor called other accusedpersons and thereafter, some quarrel again took place in which threepersons received injuries. It is alleged that, the said injuries werereceived in an assault by the accused in which Sanjay Gaikwad receivedinjuries to both his hands and his head. One Abhijit received blunttrauma injury. The accused Sunita bitten the arm of mother of theinformant. One relative also bitten Trishala Gaikwad. It is furtheralleged that, all the accused persons abused in the name of caste andthey also damaged the motorcycle of the informant. 4.Initially Section 3(1)(t) of the Atrocities Act was not mentionedin the FIR, however, while filing charge-sheet the said offence came tobe added on the basis of one statement recorded after two months ofthe incident that, in an incident when the electricity was disconnectedfor some time, some of the persons thrown stones on the statue of theDr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and they also smashed garland of the statue. 3 of 7 4 907-appeal 409-2025.odtOn FIR, the appellants came to be arrested in Criminal Appeal No.374/2025. They filed application for bail, however, the same came tobe rejected by order dated 21.05.2025. The application for anticipatorybail of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 409/2025 came to berejected by order dated 24.03.2025. Thus, the appellants in both thecriminal appeals are before this Court.5.The learned advocate Mr. Chatterji for the appellants vehementlyargued that, in fact, no case is made out against any of the accused asno specific role is attributed against any of the accused persons.Initially Section 3(1)(t) of the Atrocities Act was not shown in the FIR,however, only on the basis of one solitary statement, the said offencecame to be added while filing the charge-sheet. There is also counterFIR lodged by accused No. 3 namely Nandkishor in which theinformant and other accused are already released on bail by this Courtby order dated 02.05.2025. From the FIR itself it is clear that, on09.03.2025 it is the informant himself was aggressor who startedassault. What followed was only reaction thereafter. To make it seriousprovisions of Atrocities Act are added. The grievous injury is only toone person i.e. contusion to left forearm (left displaced mid shift ulnafracture) and another injury is Right wrist (5th PIP Joint dislocation).He thus submits that, though the allegations are made those are not 4 of 7
Legal Reasoning
5 907-appeal 409-2025.odtspecific. He submits that, no offence is, in fact, made out under theAtrocities Act. Offence under B.N.S. except Sections 118 (2) and 333of the B.N.S. punishment is only upto seven years and fine. He thussubmits that, clearly a case is made out to grant bail to the appellantsin Criminal Appeal No. 374/2025 and to grant anticipatory bail to theappellants in Criminal Appeal No. 409/2025.6.The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the appeals. He submitsthat, there are grievous injuries caused to Sanjay. There are two ladieswho were assaulted by the accused persons. He submits that, no case ismade out to grant bail.7.The learned advocate Mr. Parghane for respondent No. 2 alsovehemently argued that, when clear case is made out, no relief can begranted to the appellants. 8.This Court has gone through the injury certificate and thestatements. In none of the statements it is specifically alleged that as towhich of the accused persons abused in the name of caste. Theallegation is that they abused in chorus. From the statement of injuredSanjay Gaikwad it is seen that, the allegations of assault which causedgrievous injury at the hands of Shankar Gajanan and son of Gajananwho are presently not before the Court. Thus, there is no specific 5 of 7 6 907-appeal 409-2025.odtallegation against any of the appellants before this Court. This Courtfinds that, both the appeals deserve to be allowed.9. Both the criminal appeals are allowed. The order passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar dated 24.03.2025 impugnedin Criminal Appeal No. 409/2025 and order passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Bhokar and Special Judge, Bhokar dated21.05.2025 impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 374/2025 are quashedand set aside. 10.The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 374/2025 be released onbail in connection with FIR 0052 for the offences punishable underSections 333, 118 (2), 189(2), 191 (2), 189 (9), 324 (4), 296, 352,351 (2) of the B.N.S. and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) ofthe Atrocities Act on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-with one solvent surety in the like amount.11.The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 409/2025 be released onbail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR 0052 for theoffences punishable under Sections 333, 118 (2), 189(2), 191 (2), 189(9), 324 (4), 296, 352, 351 (2) of the B.N.S. and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act on furnishing P.R. bond in thesum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. 6 of 7
Decision
7 907-appeal 409-2025.odt12.The appellants in both the criminal appeals be released onfollowing conditions :(i).The appellants shall not enter the village Waghi till the trial isover. (ii)They shall not try to contact any of the witnesses and try topressurize them. (iii)They shall give their residential address, mobile number andother contact details with the concerned I.O./police station.13.With this, the Criminal Appeals stand disposed of. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 7 of 7