High Court
Legal Reasoning
*7* apeal494a475o25AB9.After having considered submissions of learnedadvocates for the parties and having perused the record madeavailable to me, it is revealed that there is long standing civildispute between the parties and there is also injunction orderpassed by the Civil Court against the informant. Though learnedAPP strongly opposed the appeals relying on investigationpapers, wherein there are statements of eyewitnesses which,according to him, go to show prime involvement of theappellants in crime, however, bare perusal of contents of the FIRwould prima facie show that the caste based abuse is in the formof chorus. As such, in absence of any specific allegation against aparticular accused, the case for grant of anticipatory bail is madeout.10.It is apposite to note here that anticipatory bail isdevice to secure individual’s liberty. The power under Section438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bailis to be exercised on the basis of available material and facts of aparticular case. Where the accused is ready to join investigationand is also ready to cooperate with investigation agency and isnot likely to abscond, in that event custodial interrogation should *8* apeal494a475o25ABbe avoided. Although there is bar under Section 18-A of theAtrocities Act, however, duty is cast upon the Court to verifyaverments in the complaint and to find out whether, the offenceunder the Act has been prima facie made out or not? If there isspecific averment in the complaint as regards insult orintimidation with intend to humiliate the victim by calling castename, then the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.However, nature and gravity of accusations and exact role of theaccused is required to be properly comprehended before arrest ismade.11.In Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union Of India, AIR2020 SC 1036 and Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala, 2024 SCCOnline SC 2249 : 2024 INSC 625, the Honourable Supreme Courtobserved that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bailand in cases where no prima facie materials exist in the offencesunder the Atrocities Act, the Court has the inherent power todirect a pre-arrest bail.12.In view of the above discussion and after evaluatingentire material against the appellants carefully, prima facie I amof the view that the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the *9* apeal494a475o25ABappellants can be considered. Hence, the following order:ORDERa)Both the appeals are allowed and the impugnedorders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded,are quashed and set aside.b)In the event of arrest of the appellants in connectionwith Crime bearing FIR No.192/2025 registered on 17.05.2025with Vimantal Police Station, Nanded, District Nanded, foroffences punishable under Sections 119(1), 329(3), 189(2), 190,115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code andSections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, they shallbe released on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- [RupeesTwenty Five Thousand Only] each with one solvent surety/security in the like amount.c)The appellants shall attend the concerned policestation on every Monday between 11:00 AM to 12:00 noon tillfiling of the charge-sheet. d)The appellants shall not try to contact or pressurizethe witnesses or the informant, in any manner whatsoever. *10* apeal494a475o25AB13.However, it is made clear that the observations madein this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose ofadjudication of this appeal. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )
Arguments
*1* apeal494a475o25ABIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.494 OF 2025BALAJIRAO KISHANRAO GADHEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.ANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.475 OF 2025 DR. RAJENDRA PUNJARAO KADAMVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. …Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Sandip R. Sapkal,Shri A.S. Gadekar and Shri R.N. Patil, Advocates for theappellants.Shri Sunil B. Jadhav, APP for respondent No.1/ State.Ms. Maya R. Jamdhade, Advocate for respondent No.2.... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 03 October, 2025P. C. :-1.By these appeals, the appellants pray for grant ofanticipatory bail in connection with Crime bearing FIRNo.192/2025 registered on 17.05.2025 with Vimantal PoliceStation, Nanded, District Nanded, for offences punishable under *2* apeal494a475o25ABSections 119(1), 329(3), 189(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3)of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Atrocities Act’).3.Respondent No.2/ informant lodged the said FIRalleging that on 20.03.2025 at about 09:50 pm in evening, whenthe appellant along with his son Vinod were closing their shopJai Maharashtra Water Servicing, at that time, the presentappellants along with other 30 persons came there and theappellant (Dr. Rajendra Kadam) slapped the informant. Both theappellants are alleged to have abused the informant by referringto his caste and at that time, the appellant (Dr. Rajendra Kadam)took away Rs.930/- from the informant’s pocket and alsothreatened that if the informant does not vacate the plot, he willkill him and his family members. At that time, the informantcalled police by dialing 112 toll free number and the police cameat the spot. Thereafter, the informant went to the Police Stationand he was referred to hospital for medical examination. Thoughthe informant visited the Police Station on 21.03.2025, however,his complaint was not recorded. Thereafter, after persuasion with *3* apeal494a475o25ABhigher police authorities, the complaint was registered on17.05.2025.4.The appellant (Dr. Rajendra Kadam) along withother co-accused persons filed Criminal Bail ApplicationNo.463/2025 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Nanded. However, the said application to the extent of appellant(Dr.Rajendra) came to be rejected vide order dated 02.06.2025.Similarly, the appellant (Balajirao Gadhe) also filed CriminalBail Application No.503/2025, however, his application alsocame to be rejected by order dated 24.06.2025. Hence, theseappeals praying for anticipatory bail.5.Learned Senior Advocate Shri Sapkal appearing forthe appellants submitted that on 17.03.1987, the appellant(Dr.Rajendra) had purchased the property situated in SurveyNo.43 admeasuring 120x30 feet at village Sangavi (Bk), Talukaand District Nanded vide registered sale deed from MadhukarDonglikar and Pramod Mahajan. Accordingly, mutation entrywas recorded in the name of appellant (Dr. Rajendra) and theconcerned Gram Panchayat also gave number as 355 and the saidproperty was allotted CTS No.9479. Thus, the appellant *4* apeal494a475o25AB(Dr.Rajendra) is owner and in possession of the said plot.According to learned Senior Advocate, one Govind Pawarexecuted sale deed of the said plot in favour of the informant,when said Govind Pawar has no right over said plot. Beingaggrieved by this sale deed executed on 28.03.2012, theappellant (Dr.Rajendra) filed Regular Civil Suit No.1033/2012seeking declaration that the said sale deed be declared as void.The learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Nanded, has alsogranted injunction in favour of the appellant vide order dated11.03.2023.6.Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that theinformant had filed applications for mutating his name inproperty card, however, one Shivaji Chaure had objected to sameon the ground that the informant, on the basis of false sale deed,is trying to mutate his name. The revenue authorities, afterhearing the parties, rejected the applications of the informantvide orders dated 30.08.2014 and 14.05.2015. It is specificallystated that the appellant (Dr.Rajendra) has also filed FIRNo.86/2012 with the Vimantal Police Station on 22.08.2012against the informant stating therein that the informant along *5* apeal494a475o25ABwith Govind Pawar have created false documents in respect ofsaid plot. The appellant also filed one more FIR No.90/2012 on01.09.2012 against the informant as he has carried outencroachment on the plot. According to learned Senior Advocate,despite the order of Civil Court restraining the informant, onmultiple times he tried to encroach on the plot, which is inpossession of the appellant. The informant used to threaten theappellants that he would lodge the complaint under the AtrocitiesAct. By taking shelter of his caste, the informant has tried toencroach on the plot on multiple times and therefore, theappellant (Dr.Rajendra) has filed several complaints from time totime with the authorities against the informant on 10.08.2012,16.08.2012, 21.08.2012, 27.04.2015, 30.04.2015, 20.05.2015,09.07.2015, 21.07.2015, 01.03.2016, 07.03.2016, 25.03.2016,01.02.2019, 25.03.2020 and 14.12.2020.7.Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants furthersubmitted that the appellant (Dr.Rajendra) is well qualified andhas secured Masters in Surgery from Shivaji University,Kolhapur. As far as the appellant (Balajirao Gadhe) is concerned,he is an agriculturist and also doing other job work. The *6* apeal494a475o25ABappellants have been falsely implicated. Bare perusal of the FIRdoes not inspire confidence and as such, no offence is said to becommitted by the appellants. There is civil dispute between theparties. There is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. There isno material to indicate any direct or indirect involvement of theappellants in crime. Allegations in the FIR are vague and generaland do not disclose any specific overt act attributable to theappellants. Custodial interrogation of the appellants is not at allnecessary as they are ready to cooperate with investigation.Therefore, the appellants deserve to be released on anticipatorybail.8.Per contra, learned APP as well as learned advocatefor respondent No.2/ informant strongly opposed the instantappeals and stated that, investigation in respect of alleged crimeis in progress. The appellants and other accused are absconding,therefore, there is no progress in investigation. Custodialinterrogation is necessary. The offence took place at public placeand the informant was subjected to caste based abuses.Therefore, in view of the bar under Section 18-A of the AtrocitiesAct, the appellants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.