High Court

Legal Reasoning

*1* 941apeal583o25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2025VISHNU VTTHALRAO PANKHADE,RAHUL UDDHAVRO UGALE AND RAMESHWAR VITTHALRAO PANKHADE VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND UJWAL MAHADEV SUTAR...Shri Sachin Subhash Panale, Advocate for the Appellants.Shri Sunil B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No.1/State.Shri Dhas Bhaskar Laxman, Advocate for Respondent No.2.... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 30 September, 2025P. C. :-1.By this appeal, the appellants pray for grant ofanticipatory bail in connection with FIR bearing CrimeNo.414/2025 registered with Georai Police Station, Beed, foroffences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352,3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the AtrocitiesAct’). *2* 941apeal583o252.The said FIR was lodged by respondent No.2/informant on 10.07.2025 alleging therein that on 24.05.2025 at11:00 PM in evening, when the informant was going on hismotorcycle to bring medicines for his mother, at that time,appellant No.1 (Vishnu) came from wrong side on his fourwheeler and hit his motorcycle forcing him to take his vehicleroadside. At that time, the informant shouted by asking him todrive vehicle slowly whereupon, appellant No.1 got down fromhis vehicle and started abusing the informant and also slappedhim. Since appellant No.1 was under influence of liquor,therefore, passerby people pacified quarrel between them.On next day i.e. on 25.05.2025 in morning at about11:00 AM, one Prabhu Tatya Misal called on mobile of theinformant and asked him to come to Hotel Anand near MondhaNaka, Georai to settle yesterday’s dispute. Accordingly, theinformant went to the said hotel where, three appellants alongwith Prabhu Tatya Misal and Ranjit Sarate were present.However, appellant No.1 (Vishnu) started abusing the informantby referring to his caste and slapped him on his face. At thattime, other accused persons also abused the informant by *3* 941apeal583o25referring to his caste and also threatened to kill him. When theaccused persons were leaving the spot, at that time, appellantNo.3 (Rameshwar) threatened the informant that if the complaintis filed against them, they would kill him. Accordingly, theinformant lodged the report.3.Apprehending arrest, the appellants filed CriminalBail Application No.705/2025 for grant of anticipatory bail,however, same has been rejected by learned Additional SessionsJudge, Beed, vide order dated 23.07.2025. Hence, this appeal.5.Learned advocate for the appellants submitted thatthe appellants are innocents and they have not committed anyoffence as alleged in FIR. However, they have been falselyimplicated in the said crime. According to him, though theincident took place on 25.05.2025, the report came to be lodgedon 10.07.2025. Thus, there is huge delay in lodging the report.On contrary, appellant No.1 had infact filed the complaint againstrespondent No.2/ informant on 25.05.2025 itself and same cameto be registered vide NCR No.428/2025. According to learnedadvocate, since prima facie case against the appellants is notmade out, therefore, they are entitled for grant of anticipatory *4* 941apeal583o25bail.6.Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted thatadmittedly, respondent No.2 belongs to Scheduled Castecommunity and initially he tried to lodge report against theappellants, however, same was not registered. He, therefore,approached the Superintendent of Police on 25.05.2025 itself.Since the Police had not taken any action, he again approached tothe Police Inspector, Georai Police Station by filing hiscomplaint on 05.06.2025. The Police thereafter, inquired intocomplaint of respondent No.2 and finally, the FIR came to beregistered against the appellants. Thus, entire delay is attributedto inaction on the part of police authorities. According to learnedAPP, custodial interrogation of the appellants is necessary toascertain full motive behind targeted abuse, to identify andcorroborate the statements of witnesses present at the spot ofincident. It is also necessary to see that the appellants should notthreaten witnesses. Considering allegations in FIR, the appellantsare not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail and hence,their appeal be rejected.7.Learned advocate for respondent No.2/ informant *5* 941apeal583o25submitted that the FIR clearly discloses commission of offenceand also complete chain of events constituting alleged offences.The informant has categorically stated in his complaint specificwords and abuses uttered by the appellants in presence of severalwitnesses. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the appeal.8.After considering submissions of the parties andperusing the investigation papers produced by learned APP, it isrevealed that respondent No.2 belongs to Scheduled Castecommunity. The appellants called the informant at hotel andunder the garb of settling the matter, abused and beaten him byreferring to his caste. The appellants during the said conversationhave insulted and humiliated the informant by referring to hiscaste. It is specifically stated in the complaint that theyhumiliated the informant in presence of several witnesses bysaying that he has no right to lodge the complaint against theappellants because he belongs to Scheduled Caste category. Theappellants have also threatened him that if he lodges thecomplaint, they would kill him.9.Learned APP has handed over the investigationpapers during the course of hearing of instant appeal. The *6* 941apeal583o25statements of independent witnesses, who were present at hotel,came to be recorded. The said statements support the case of theinformant. The said witnesses categorically stated that theappellants have abused the informant by referring to his casteand have also threatened to kill him if he lodges any reportagainst them. Since there are independent witnesses to theincident and ingredients of FIR show prima facie commission ofoffences by the appellants under provisions of the Atrocities Act,they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.10.During the course of hearing, learned advocate forthe appellants has heavily relied upon paragraph No.6 of thejudgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Kiran vs. RajkumarJivraj Jain and another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1886.However, in the present case, bare perusal of ingredients of FIRwould disclose commission of offences under the Atrocities Actby the appellants and, therefore, this judgment will not come torescue the appellants. On the contrary, paragraph No.7 of the saidjudgment discloses commission of offence in that case, which issomewhat identical in nature with the crime in the instant case.In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to set *7* 941apeal583o25aside the order passed by the High Court and cancelledanticipatory bail granted to the accused therein. Thus, the rulingcited by the appellants is not applicable to the instant case.11.In view of the above discussion, the instant CriminalAppeal is rejected.12.At this stage, learned advocate for the appellantsrequested for continuation of interim anticipatory bail granted bythis Court vide order dated 01.08.2025. However, learned APPopposed this request contending that though crime is registeredon 10.07.2025, there is no progress in investigation as theaccused persons are absconding.13.Perusal of available material on record prima faciereveals commission of offence under the Atrocities Act. Theappellants are absconding and there is no progress ininvestigation. Hence, the prayer for continuation of interim reliefis rejected. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )