High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
484.25apeal(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 934 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 484 OF 202501. Sandip s/o Kishanrao Gawande,Age: 34 years, Occ. Agri,R/o.: Dongarkada,Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli.02.Shrikant s/o Sanjay Gawande,Age: 21 years, Occ. Agri,R/o.: Dongarkada,Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli...AppellantsVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Investigating Officer,Akhada Balapur Police Station,Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli2.The Superintendent of Police,Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli3. Balaji s/o Shankarrao Torkad,Age: - 33 years, Occ. Driver,R/o. Bhategaon, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli….Respondents…..Mr Amol G. Kale, Advocate for AppellantsMr G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2/StateMs Smita Chole (Kendre), Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.3 ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER 2025 484.25apeal(2) P. C. :1.By this appeal, the appellants are praying for quashingand setting aside the order dated 18/06/2025, passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge-1, Dist. Hingoli below Exhibit 01 inCriminal Bail Application No.212/2025, wherein the application filedby them praying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection withCrime No. 296/2025 registered with Akhada Balapur Police Station forthe offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190,118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 andunder Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 came to berejected. The appellants are further praying for grant of anticipatorybail to them in Crime No.296/2025.2.Crime No.296/20525 came to be registered at AkhadaBalapur Police Station, Dist. Hingoli on the basis of report lodged bycomplainant/respondent Nos.3, stating therein that he is working as awaiter at Ashwamegh Bar, which is belonging to one Dr. VasantRathod, situated at Dongarkada. On 10/05/2025, at about 7:30 p.m.,when he was working at the said hotel, accused/appellant No.1/SandipKishanrao Gawande alongwith an unknown person came there and 484.25apeal(3) they consumed liquor. After consuming liquor, they were leaving theBar without payment of bill. The Manager of the said Bar asked themto pay the bill. However, applicant No.1, instead of paying bill, askedthe Manager to send someone with him for paying bill. AppellantNo.1 gave his mobile phone with another waiter, namely, Ravi Rathod.Thereafter, at about 8:30 to 8:45 p.m., appellant Nos.1 and 2,alongwith some other accused persons came to hotel with weapons.Applicant No.1 started assaulting Ravi Rathod with fist and kicksblows. At that time, the informant and Manager of the Bar, namely,Parmeshwar tried to pacify the quarrel, however, appellant No.1abused the informant by referring to his caste. The accused personsalleged to have slapped and assaulted him with fist and kicks blows.In the said quarrel, appellant No.1 alleged to have assaulted SudhakarUttam Jadhav by iron rod on his head and appellant No.2 alleged tohave assaulted other victim, namely, Vikas Ulhas Jadhav by usingwooden sticks on his head. The victims got injured and they werereferred to Rural Hospital, Balapur for treatment. They were againreferred to Nanded for further treatment. After taking the first aid, theyhave lodged the report on 11/05/2025. On the basis of said report, thePolice registered Crime for the offences punishable under Sections189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352 of the
Legal Reasoning
484.25apeal(4) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(s),3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act 1989.3.Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.4.This Court, vide order dated 03/07/2025, while issuingnotices to the Respondents, granted ad-interim protection to the extentof applicant No.2/Shrikant Sanjay Gawande only. 5.Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that theappellants are falsely implicated. In order to register offence under theAtrocities Act, the informant has falsely stated that abuses have beengiven by the appellants by referring to his caste. According to thelearned Advocate for the appellant, the alleged offence did not takeplace in public view, and accordingly, prayed for grant of anticipatorybail to the present appellants. 6.Per contra, learned APP Mr Wattamwar and learnedCounsel Ms Chole for respondent No.3/complainant have stronglyopposed the application for grant of bail. Learned APP made availablethe investigation papers to this Court. He also stated that the appellantNo.1 is absconding since long and the weapon used by him is required 484.25apeal(5) to be seized from him. Therefore, he states that the custodialinterrogation of the appellants is necessary. 7.A perusal of the record and the investigation papers,discloses that injured Sudhakar Jadhav has sustained injury on frontalscalp by hard blunt weapon, amongst other various injuries. Theinvestigation papers also disclosed the injuries to other victims.Appellant No.1 alleged to have assaulted to the victim by using ironrod, whereas as against appellant No.2, there is no serious aggravatingrole assigned to him.8.Considering the above submissions and perusal of therecord and investigation papers, since investigation is going on, thecustodial interrogation of appellant No.1 in order to carry out furtherinvestigation. Since the incident is of serious nature, I am not inclinedto grant anticipatory bail to appellant No.1/Sandip KishanraoGawande. At this moment, learned Advocate for the appellants seekspermission to withdraw appeal to the extent of appellant No.1.However, anticipatory bail can be granted to appellant No.2/ShrikantSanjay Gawande, as he has not misused liberty after grant of interimprotection by this Court. Hence, I pass the following order :- 484.25apeal(6) ORDERa)The Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.b)Appeal for grant of anticipatory bail to the extent ofappellant No.1/Sandip Kishanrao Gawande is hereby dismissed aswithdrawn.c)The impugned order dated 18/06/2025 passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dist. Hingoli, in Criminal BailApplication No.212/2025, is quashed and set aside to the extent ofappellant No.2.d)The appellant No.2 shall be released in the event of hisarrest in connection with Crime No. 296/2025 registered with AkhadaBalapur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352 of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(s),3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- [RupeesTwenty Five Thousand Only] with one solvent surety/ security in thelike amount.e)Appellant No.2 shall attend the concerned police stationas and when called by the Investigating Officer. 484.25apeal(7) f)Appellant No.2 shall not try to contact or pressurize thewitnesses or the informant, in any manner whatsoever.9.However, it is made clear that the observations made inthis order are prima facie in nature for the purpose of adjudication ofthis appeal.10.Fees of learned Advocate appointed to representrespondent No.3 is to be paid through the High Court Legal ServicesSub-Committee, Aurangabad as per Rules. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]sjk