High Court
Facts
481.25apeal(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.481 OF 20251.Riyaz s/o Hamid Sayyed,Age: 40 years, Occ. LabourR/o At Inamdar wada,Rahuri, Tal. Rahuri,Dist. Ahilyanagar2.Hamid s/o Gulab Sayyed,Age: 71 years, Occ. Labour,R/o as above….APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,thr. the Superintendent of Police,Ahilyanagar2.XYZ ….RESPONDENTS…..Mr Sandip R. Andhale, Advocate for AppellantsMr S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No.1/StateMs Sarin Karishma S., Advocate for Respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 24 SEPTEMBER 2025P. C. :1.By this criminal appeal, the appellants are praying forquashing and setting aside the order dated 18/06/2025, passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar, in 481.25apeal(2) Criminal Bail Application No.735/2025 whereby, the said applicationpreferred by the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected.2.The aforesaid anticipatory bail application was preferredin Crime bearing FIR No.0562/2025 registered on 10/05/2025 withRahuri Police Station, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar for theoffences punishable under Sections 74, 126(2), 352, 3(5) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(r)(5) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Atrocities Act’). The FIR came to be lodgedat the behest of respondent No.2/ informant.3.Through this appeal, the appellants are also praying forgrant of anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime.4.The aforesaid Crime No.0562/2025 is registered on thebasis of the report lodged by respondent No.2/informant, statingtherein that she is having agricultural land dispute with the accusedpersons (appellants) and on 10/05/2025 at 6.00 pm, after completinglabour work of sugarcane cultivation, when she was returning towardsher home with her daughter, near the mountain road at BargaonNandur Shivar, the appellants obstructed their way and started abusingthem by referring their caste. The appellants alleged to have pulled 481.25apeal(3) her hair. Thereafter, informant and her daughter reached their house atBargaon Nandur and informed her husband about the incident andaccordingly, approached to the Police Station and lodged the report.On the basis of said report, FIR came to be lodged against theappellants.5.Heard learned Advocate Mr Andhale for the appellants,learned APP Mr Jadhav for respondent No.1/State and learnedAdvocate Ms Sarin for respondent No.2.6.Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that, noalleged incident as regards commission of crime took place on thegiven date and spot and the appellants have not committed offence ofabusing the informant. The entire FIR is false and the appellants arefalsely implicated in the said crime. A longstanding dispute betweencomplainant and appellants is pertaining to ownership and possessionof land and due to said dispute, the informant has lodged falsecomplaint against the appellants with malicious intention. This showsthat respondent No.2/informant is deliberately making false allegationsagainst the appellants in order to implicate them in a serious crime. Hesubmits that investigation discloses that at the time of alleged incident,appellant No.1 was not present on the spot as he, alongwith his friend, 481.25apeal(4) had gone to market for purchasing. The CCTV footages of theincident clear the said issue of his non-availability on the spot andentire case is based on fabricated facts. He further submits that inrelation to civil dispute between informant and the appellants, CivilSuit (Special Case) No.166/02020) is filed by the appellants againstfather-in-law of the informant. In the said suit, vide Exhibit-5,injunction application came to be allowed in favour of the appellantsand therefore, in revengeful manner, the informant has filed the falsecomplaint and since no prima facie case is made out against theappellants, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants.7.Per contra, learned APP appearing for respondentNo.1/State strongly opposes the present appeal for anticipatory bail tothe appellants. According to him, the offence committed by theappellants is very serious one. Statement of daughter of victimdiscloses that the appellants had abused her mother by referring theircaste, and therefore, strong material is available against the appellantsand therefore, he prays for rejection of the appeal. 8.Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 also argued atlength and she tried to justify the order passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Court, rejecting anticipatory bail application of
Legal Reasoning
481.25apeal(5) the appellants. According to her, the incident took place in day lighton the public road, and as such, prima facie case is made out againstthe appellants, and therefore she submits that the appellants are notentitled for grant of anticipatory bail. She further submits that, if theyreleased on bail, they may threatened the prosecution witnesses andmay tamper evidence. She, therefore, prays for rejection of the appeal.9.After having heard the submissions made by the learnedAdvocates for the respective sides and having perused theinvestigation papers, it becomes clear that, at the time of incident,appellant No.1 had gone to Rahuri Malharwadi Road, Tq. Rahuri, Dist.Ahmednagar at one Vaishnavi Still Centre for purchasing utensils.Statement of said shop owner confirms the presence of appellant No.1at the time of incident at his shop. The CCTV footages to that effecthave been obtained by the Police and it was confirmed that he was notavailable at the spot of incident. Long standing civil dispute betweenappellants and the informant also shows that the FIR is filed by theinformant in view of strained relations between them. In that view ofthe matter, it can be easily concluded that no prima facie case againstthe appellants is made out. Therefore, the appellants deserves to begranted anticipatory bail as the bar provided under provision of 481.25apeal(6) Section 18 of the Atrocities Act will not be applicable in view of thenumerous judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, Ipass the following order :-ORDERa)The Criminal Appeals stand allowed.b)The impugned order dated 18/06/2025, passed bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, DistrictAhmednagar, in Criminal Bail Application No.735/2025 ishereby quashed and set aside.c)In the event of arrest of the appellants in connectionwith Crime bearing FIR No.0562/2025 registered on 10/05/2025with Rahuri Police Station, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar forthe offences punishable under Sections 74, 126(2), 352, 3(5) ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989, they shall be released on furnishing PRbond of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only] each,with one solvent surety/ security in the like amount. 481.25apeal(7) d)The appellants shall attend the concerned policestation as and when called by the Investigating Officer.e)The appellants shall not try to contact or pressurizethe witnesses or the informant, in any manner whatsoever.10.However, it is made clear that the observations made inthis order are prima facie in nature for the purpose of adjudication ofthis appeal. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]sjk