High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
1 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-JIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD51 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.560 OF 20251. Vsntrav Shahadevrao Pawar,Age : 56 years, Occupation: Agri. 2. Bhisma Vasantrao Pawar,Age : 28 years, Occupation: Education, 3.Raju Gangadhar Nirmal,Age : 58 years, Occupation: Nirmal, 4.Pravin Gorakhnath Hingale,Age: 31 yrs., Occu.: Agri,5. Ganesh Vitthal Hingale,Age: 52 yrs., Occu.: Agri,6. Ganesh Pandurang Nirmal,Age: 37 yrs., Occu.: Agri,7. Amol Digambar Hingale,Age: 34 yrs., Occu.: Agri,8. Shubham Govind Nirmal,Age: 23 yrs., Occu.: Education,9. Avdhut Ganesh Nirmal,Age: 26 yrs., Occu.: Service,All R/o At Limbgoan, Post. Thergaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. … AppellantsVersus 1. State of Maharashtra,Through Investigation Officer Crime No.0259/2025, Pachod Police Station, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad (Rural)2.Nitesh Damodhar Londhe,Age: 27 yrs., Occu.: Agri, R/o. At Limbgoan, Post. Thergaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
2 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-J…Mr. Sandeep B. Rajebhosale, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Bhagwan K. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (throughV.C.). …CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.RESERVED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2025PRONOUNCED ON: 26th SEPTEMBER, 2025JUDGMENT:-1.The Appellants are praying for quashing and setting aside theorder passed by learned Special Judge, (Under SC&ST Act), Paithan,Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad in Criminal Bail ApplicationNo.102 of 2025 and further praying for release them on anticipatorybail. The said order came to be passed in Crime No.259 of 2025,registered on 9th July 2025 at Pachod Police station, Taluka Paithan,District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2),191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) 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. The CrimeNo.259 of 2025 is registered on the basis of report lodged by NiteshDamodhar Londhe (Respondent No.2) on 9th July 2025 at 20:59 hours.2.As per the oral report, Respondent No.2 stated that on 9thJuly 2025 at 11:30 a.m., he along with his nephew-Aniket Raju Londhewere going towards Pathardi for refilling the petrol. At that time, all 3 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-Jnine Accused persons (Appellants) came to him and started abusing onthe basis of their caste. They also alleged to have assaulted by fist andkick blows and threatened to kill them. In the meantime, his nephew-Aniket Londhe came there. However, he was also beaten and theysnatched Rs.50,000/- from his pocket and, therefore, he lodged thereport with the Pachod Police Station. 3.Learned Advocate for the Appellants submitted that afterregistration of the aforesaid Crime No.259 of 2025, on next date i.e. on10th July 2025, offence punishable under Sections 310(2) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came to be added. He furthersubmitted that prior to Registration of Crime No.259 of 2025, twoearlier crimes came to be registered i.e. FIR No.257 of 2025 at 19:12hours and Crime No.258 of 2025 at 20:01 hours. In the FIR No.257 of2025, it is alleged that on 9th July 2025 at 12:00 noon, RespondentNo.2-Informant along with his Co-accused have physically assaultedthe complainant and snatched Rs.5,000/- from him. In the said FIR, itis specifically stated that Respondent No.2 had threatened thecomplainant therein of filing the atrocity case against them. AnotherCrime No.258 of 2025 is lodged by Jitesh Ganesh Vavhal, who reportedthat on 9th July 2025 at 11:30, when he was having tea in front ofgrocery shop of village, the Accused persons therein including one-Pravin Gorakhnath Hingale have abused him by referring to his caste 4 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-Jand, therefore, offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 352,351(3) of the BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of theSC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are registered againstAccused persons. Thereafter to counter blast the said FIR, again thirdFIR bearing Crime No.259 of 2025, at the instance of Respondent No.2came to be filed with colourful and concocted story just to increase thegravity of the offence. According to Mr. Rajebhosale, learned Advocatefor the Appellants, deliberately false case has been registered againstthem, which would be evident from the fact that Crime No.258 of2025, it is shown that the said incident took place at grocery shop ofvillage and Accused therein namely, Pravin Gorakhnath Hingale hasparticipated in crime. However, the said Pravin Ingle has been shownpresent on the spot in both the crime at the same time. Another factthat in Crime No.258 of 2025, it is stated that Accused-MachindraPandurang Ingle was present, but the said Machindra Ingle is alreadyexpired on 1st July 2016 and his death certificate is also relied uponhim. Another fact which falsifies the case of the Informant-RespondentNo.2 that it is stated in the FIR that he was going to petrol pumplocated at Limbgaon, Shivaar. However, according to learned Advocatefor the Appellants, there is no such petrol pump in the vicinity ofLimbgaon, Shivaar. In addition to these submissions, learned Advocatefor the Appellants would also submit that the allegations levelledagainst the Appellants are of general in nature. In chorus, Appellants 5 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-Jhave been alleged to have abused to the Informant-Respondent No.2.No specific role of Accused has been stated in the report. Therefore,according to him, no prima-facie case is made out against Accusedpersons and, therefore, they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 4.Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the applicationand stated that the Appellants are involved in serious crime against themember of Schedule Caste. The investigation in the instant prime isgoing on. Since the Appellants are involved in serious crime, therefore,there custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore, he prayed forrejection of instant appeal. 5.I also heard learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, whovehemently opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail to theAppellants. According to him, the Appellants are influential persons ofthe village. They have committed serious offences against the personsbelonging to the alleged act of the Appellants, there is fear in the mindof the members of Schedule Caste persons. If Appellants are grantedanticipatory bail, they may threaten the witnesses. As such grantinganticipatory bail would create adverse impact on the minds of personsbelonging to Schedule Caste. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of theanticipatory bail. 6.On the basis of submissions made by learned Advocates forthe respective parties and after going through the papers, it is pertinent 6 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-Jto mention here that there are three FIRs filed out of same incident andCrime No.259 of 2025 is filed in an attempt to counter blast previouscrimes. The bare perusal of all the FIRs would reveal that out of thesame incident, three reports have been filed deliberately to falselyimplicate the Accused persons. The presence of same Accused is shownat two different locations. The registration of crime against theAccused, who is dead in the year 2016 is also very surprising and assuch, therefore, it can be safely concluded that no prima-facie case ismade out against Accused-Appellants. 7.In view of the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Courtright from the judgment of Pruthvi Raj Chauhand Vs. Union of India,reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala & Anr,reported in 2024 LJSoft (SC) 758, it is for the Court to verify thecontents of the FIR and thereafter to arrive at a conclusion as towhether a prima-facie case against the Appellants-Accused is made outor not. Once it is found that no prima-facie case is made out, the barunder Section 18 of the Act is not attracted.8.In that view of the matter, since I find that since no prima-facie case is made out against the Appellants, therefore, followingorder is passed:-A]Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22nd July2025 passed by learned Special Judge, (Under SC&ST
Decision
7 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-JAct), Paithan, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad isquashed and set aside. B]In the event the Appellants are arrested in connectionwith Crime No.259 of 2025, registered on 9th July 2025at Pachod Police station, Taluka Paithan, DistrictAurangabad, they shall be released on bail on furnishingPR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties each inthe like amount. C]The Appellants shall remain present before theinvestigating officer as and when required by theinvestigating officer. D]The Appellants shall co-operate with the investigation. E]The Appellants shall not influence or threaten theinformant, witnesses or any person concerned with thecase and they shall not tamper with the evidence. 9.Appeal stands disposed of in view of above order. (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)Tauseef