High Court
Facts
*1* apeal639a641o25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2025(For Regular Bail)SUNIL BABAN WANVEANDSAMPAT BABAN WANVEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND KAKASAHEB MARUTI DHAGEANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025(For Anticipatory Bail)BHIMA MUKINDA KARADVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ANDKAKASAHEB MARUTI DHAGE...Shri R.G. Hange and Shri A.R. Hange, Advocates for theAppellants.Shri G.O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1/ State.Shri Dhananjay A. Mane, Advocate for Respondent No.2.... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. Reserved on : 16 September, 2025Pronounced on : 19 September, 2025ORDER :-1.By Criminal Appeal No.639/2025 for regular bail,the appellants therein are praying for quashing and setting asidethe order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Bail Application No.779/2025, *2* apeal639a641o25.odtwhereas, by Criminal Appeal No.641//2025 for anticipatory bail,the appellant is praying for quashing and setting aside the orderdated 11.08.2025 passed by the same Court in Criminal BailApplication No.776/2025. By the impugned orders, the saidapplications preferred by the appellants for grant of regular bailand anticipatory bail, respectively, were rejected.2.The above bail applications were preferred in Crimebearing FIR No.212/2025 registered on 20.07.2025 with ShirurKasar Police Station, District Beed for the offences punishableunder Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Atrocities Act’). The FIRcame to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/ informant(Kakasaheb Maruti Dhage).3.In the FIR, respondent No.2 alleged that on19.07.2025 at about 02:30 noon, while he and his friendPrabhakar Sarjerao Sirsath were sitting and chitchatting in thehall of Maruti Temple, Sampat Baban Wanve (appellant No.2 inCriminal Appeal No.639/2025) was sleeping in the temple hall.At that time, the brother of Sampat Wanve, namely, Sunil BabanWanve (appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.639/2025), who *3* apeal639a641o25.odtwas heavily drunk, came there and he drank water from bottleand spat the same on the person of the informant. Therefore, theinformant informed this incident to Sampat by waking up himfrom sleep. Thereafter, the quarrel took place between them andboth Sampat and Sunil alleged to have abused the informant byreferring to his caste. At that time, his friend Prabhakar Sirsathalso came there and he tried to pacify the quarrel. However, hewas also assaulted with fist and kick blows. Thereafter, theaccused persons alleged to have threatened them of direconsequences. After this incident, again the accused personsalleged to have went to the house of informant and started givingabuses. When the mother of informant came out of house, shewas also abused by referring to her caste. On the basis of theseallegations, the FIR came to be lodged on 20.07.2025 at about18:40 hours.4.According to the learned advocate for appellants,respondent No.2/ informant has lodged FIR due to long standingpolitical rivalry between the parties. There are two politicalgroups in the village Tembhurni. One political group is ofPrabhakar Sirsath, who is friend of respondent No.2/ informant.The appellant (Bhima Karad) in Criminal Appeal No.641/2025and the said Prabhakar Sirsath had contested the election against *4* apeal639a641o25.odteach other from the same ward in the year 2022 and the appellantBhima Karad had defeated Prabhakar Sirsath. The daughter ofcousin of the informant, namely, Mangal Prakash Dhage had alsocontested the election against one Pooja Ganesh Dhage, whobelonged to the group of appellant Bhima Karad. In the saidelection also, Pooja Dhage defeated Mangal Dhage. Thereafter,the Sarpanch of village was elected from the group of appellants.Thus, in view of political enmity between two groups, the FIRhas been lodged by the informant. It is stated that thesupplementary statement of the informant was recorded wherein,the informant alleged to have stated that the appellant BhimaKarad abused the informant by referring to his caste and askedhim to withdraw the FIR. Therefore, the appellant Bhima Karadcame to be added as the accused.5.The learned advocate for the appellants furthersubmitted that the incident took place between 14:30 to 15:00hours on 19.07.2025 and the said Prabhakar Sirsath, who belongsto the opponent party, along with the informant had gone to thePolice Station 19.07.2025 itself to register the FIR against theappellants. However, the NC report was registered and on thatday, the informant did not lodge any report though he was verymuch present along with Prabhakar Sirsath in the Police Station. *5* apeal639a641o25.odtOn the next day i.e. 20.07.2025 at about 18:40 hours, theinformant again went to Police Station and lodged the FIR. Thus,there is delay in lodging the FIR and it is lodged after thought.6.The learned advocate for the appellants furthersubmitted that on the contrary, respondent No.2/ informant ishabitual offender and is facing trial for the offences punishableunder Sections 363, 366, 376(n) of the Indian Penal Code andSections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. Moreover, one PoojaGanesh Dhage, who is the elected member of the VillagePanchayat, has also filed Criminal Misc. ApplicationNo.187/2022 under Section 156(3) of the Code of CriminalProcedure against the informant and others for the offencespunishable under Sections 452, 327, 324, 323, 504, 506 of theIndian Penal Code, wherein, the learned JMFC, Shirur Kasardirected the Police to investigate the said matter. Another CrimeNo.140/2013 was also registered against Prabhakar Sirsath, whois the friend of the informant, for the offences punishable underSections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus,the learned advocate for the appellants stated that in view of longstanding political rivalry between the parties, the FIR has beenregistered against the appellants and they have been falselyimplicated. In order to oppose the grant of bail to the appellants, *6* apeal639a641o25.odtthe informant and his friend are trying to file frivolouscomplaints against the appellants of threatening. According tothe learned advocate, there is no prima facie offence made outunder the provisions of the Atrocities Act against the presentappellants. However, in order to settle personal score andpolitical score, respondent No.2/ informant has deliberately filedthe FIR in question. 7.According to the learned advocate for the appellants,the FIR registered against the appellants does not show anyoffence made out against them and it also does not containnecessary ingredients to constitute the offence under theAtrocities Act. He submitted that in order to ascertain whether,there is prima facie case made out against the accused for suchoffences, such ingredients must show prima facie involvement ofthe accused in such crime. The informant and his friend havedeliberately implicated the appellants in order to show that theoffence is committed in public view. He made the statement thatif the appellants are granted bail, they shall abide by each andevery condition put to them by this Court. He, therefore, prayedfor allowing these appeals.8.Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed theappeals and contended that the appellants are involved in serious *7* apeal639a641o25.odtcrime. The crime has taken place at a public place within a publicview. The appellants and their group members are threatening theinformant of dire consequences. Custodial interrogation of theappellant (Bhima Karad) is necessary as other appellants/accused are already arrested. The investigation is almostcompleted and within a period of 2 to 3 days, the InvestigatingOfficer intends to file the charge-sheet. If the appellants arereleased on bail, similar type of offences can be repeated. Theappellants and the victim being residing in the same village,chances of causing law and order situation cannot be ruled out.He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the appeals.9.The learned advocate for respondent No.2/informant also vehemently opposed the grant of any relief infavour of the appellants. According to him, the incident tookplace in broad day light and at public place. The accused personsare influential and they are issuing threats to the informant andhis friends. If the appellants are granted bail, they will createterror in the village and may again commit similar offence. Thecontents of the FIR clearly make out a prima facie case againstthe appellants. In view of the bar under Section 18 of theAtrocities Act, the appellant (Bhima Karad) is not entitled forgrant of anticipatory bail. The learned advocate has relied on the
Legal Reasoning
*8* apeal639a641o25.odtrecent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kiran vs.Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1886to contend that if the offence under the provisions of theAtrocities Act is made out, anticipatory bail cannot be granted bydisregarding the bar of Section 18.10.After having heard the learned advocates for therespective parties and after going through the material availableon record including investigation papers made available to me bythe learned APP, it is clear that the incident, which took place on19.07.2025, came to be reported on the next day i.e. 20.07.2025.The submissions of the learned advocate for the appellantscannot be overlooked as regards the fact that the friend ofinformant, namely, Prabhakar Sirsath had also gone to the PoliceStation to register the crime against the appellants on 19.07.2025itself along with the informant. However, the informant has notfiled the report on 19.07.2025. At this prima facie stage, it needsto be considered as to why the informant has not lodged thereport on 19.07.2025 when he along with his friend had gone tothe Police Station on the same date after the alleged incident. Thepresence of his friend Prabhakar Sirsath at the time of the allegedincident on 19.07.2025 at Maruti Temple is also recorded by theinformant in his complaint. It thus appears that the informant is *9* apeal639a641o25.odtvery close to Prabhakar Sirsath and as such, it seems that bothwere trying to lodge the report against the appellants in order tosettle the political score. The candidates of the appellants’fraction have defeated the candidates of the group of PrabhakarSirsath during the Village Panchayat elections. This position isalso not disputed by the learned advocate for respondent No.2.Thus, it is evident that there is political rivalry between theparties. The record prima facie reveals that the allegationslevelled against the appellants are nothing but to take revenge forsettling political score.11.In Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another vs. State ofMaharashtra, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795, the HonourableSupreme Court has observed that the duty is cast on the Court toverify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether, theoffence under Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act has been primafacie made out. In subsequent landmark judgment of theHonourable Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs UnionOf India reported in AIR 2020 SC 1036, it has been observedthat if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case forapplicability of the provisions of the Atrocities Act, the barcreated by Section 18 and Section 18(A) shall not apply. Furtherin the very same judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court in *10* apeal639a641o25.odtparagraph No.32, which is the concurring view of one of theHonourable Judge to the said judgment, it has been observed thatas far as the provision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail isconcerned, in cases where no prima facie materials existwarranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent powerto direct a pre-arrest bail. While considering any applicationseeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the twointerests: i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert thejurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the CriminalProcedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such ordersmade in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence ismade out as shown in the FIR.12.Another landmark judgment on the issue is deliveredby the Honourable Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria vs. State ofKerala, 2024 SCC Online SC 2249 : 2024 INSC 625 wherein,the guidelines for determining the issue as regards “when can itbe said that a prima facie case is made out in a given FIR/complaint?”, has been elaborately discussed. In paragraphNos.47 and 48 of this judgment, the Honourable Supreme Courthas observed as under:-“47. Prima facie is a Latin term that translates to“at first sight” or “based on first impression”. Theexpression “where no prima facie materials exist *11* apeal639a641o25.odtwarranting arrest in a complaint or FIR” should beunderstood as “when based on first impression, no offenceis made out as shown in the FIR or the complaint”. Thismeans that when the necessary ingredients to constitutethe offence under the Act, 1989 are not made out upon thereading of the complaint, no case can be said to existprima facie.48. As a sequitur, if the necessary ingredients toconstitute the offence under the Act, 1989 are notdisclosed on the prima facie reading of the allegationslevelled in the complaint or FIR, then in suchcircumstances, as per the consistent exposition by variousdecisions of this Court, the bar of Section 18 would notapply and the courts would not be absolutely precludedfrom granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons.”13.Very recently, the Honourable Supreme Court, whileadverting on the same issue, was pleased to deliver the judgmentin Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another, 2025 SCCOnline SC 1886 wherein, in paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2following observations are made:-“6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could beread and has to be applied with a rider. In a given casewhere on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of theAct is found to have not been made out and that theaccusations relating to the commission of such offence aredevoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room toexercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to theaccused under Section 438 of the Code.6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about thecommission of offence is perceived to be such a situationwhere the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the firstblush itself or by way of the first impression upon veryreading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and theallegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard.Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a *12* apeal639a641o25.odtprima facie offence is made out or not, it would not bepermissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiaryrealm or to consider other materials, nor the Court couldadvert to conduct a mini trial.”14.At this stage, it is to be noted that the appellants inCriminal Appeal No.639/2025 are arrested on 21.07.2025 andsince then, they are behind bars. The investigation in the crime isalready completed and as per the statement of the learned APP,the charge-sheet is likely to be filed within 2-3 days. Except theoffences under the Atrocities Act, other offences are bailable.15.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, itcan be prima facie observed that there is no prima facie casemade out against the appellants and the custodial interrogation ofthe appellant in Criminal Appeal No.641/2025 is not warranted.No purpose would be served by refusing bail to the appellants.Therefore, the instant appeals deserve to be allowed by grantingbail to the appellants on certain conditions. Hence, the followingorder:ORDERa)Both Criminal Appeal Nos.639/2025 and 641/2025stand allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.08.2025 arequashed and set aside. *13* apeal639a641o25.odtb)In connection with Crime bearing FIR No.212/2025registered on 20.07.2025 with Shirur Kasar Police Station,District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2),352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, theappellants in Criminal Appeal No.639/2025 shall be released onbail on their furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees TwentyFive Thousand Only] each with one solvent surety/ security inthe like amount.c)In the event of arrest of the appellant in CriminalAppeal No.641/2025, in connection with Crime bearing FIRNo.212/2025 registered on 20.07.2025 with Shirur Kasar PoliceStation, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, he shall be released on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/-[Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only] with one solvent surety/security in the like amount.d)The appellants shall attend the concerned policestation as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filingof the charge-sheet. *14* apeal639a641o25.odte)The appellants shall not try to contact or pressurizethe witnesses or the informant, in any manner whatsoever.f)The appellants shall not enter village Tembhurni,Taluka Shirur Kasar, District Beed, till filing of the charge sheetand they shall give their residential address to the concernedInvestigating Officer. 16.However, it is made clear that the observations madein this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose ofadjudication of these appeals. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )