Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2025 · Bombay High Court

2 44criapeal836.25PER COURT :

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respectiveparties.

By the present appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short “the Atrocities Act”) r/w Section 482 of the BhartiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants/accused takesexception to the order dated 28.10.2025, passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai in Criminal Bail Application No.502 of 2025, whereby, the learned trial Court declined to grantanticipatory bail to the appellants in connection with Crime No. 492 of2025, registered with Ambejogai City Police Station, District Beed.

On the face of record, it appears that on 03.10.2025, therespondent No. 3-informant lodged an oral report with Ambejogai CityPolice Station, District Beed alleging that she and the accused/appellantare neighbourers. A cow of accused Wahid Shaikh had attacked Shwetathe daughter of the informant, therefore, she asked the appellant No.4Shahinbegum w/o Wahed Shaikh, to tie the cow and on that count on01.10.2025 at about 10.00 p.m. appellants/accused assaulted her andabused on her caste i.e. the appellants/accused were knowing that thevictim respondent No. 3 belongs to scheduled caste. The said incidenthas occurred in front of the house of respondent No. 3. So also, all theappellants/accused assaulted due to which the informant sustained 3 44criapeal836.25injuries. The appellants/accused No.1 Saleem Shaikh assaulted theinformant’s husband and issued life threats. The neighbours, Satyabhama Mahadev Kamble, Parshuram Laxman Shinde intervenedand separated the accused persons and the respondent No. 3. On thebasis of FIR, Crime No. 492 of 2025 has been registered against thepresent appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Sections115 (2), 352, 351(2), 3 (5), of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 andunder Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. The appellants had filed an application bearing Criminal BailApplication No. 502 of 2025, before the Special Court, Ambejogai, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime no. 492 of 2025.

On 28.10.2025, the learned Additional SessionsJudge/Special Court, Ambejogai, passed the impugned order holdingthat the alleged abusement on caste to the respondent No. 3-informanthas occurred in the public view, therefore, as per the ratio laid down inthe case of Kiran V. Rajukmar Jivraj Jain - AIR 2025, SC 4083 (equv. Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024 SCC Online 2249), it is held thatthe abusement to a member of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribesoccurred within public view, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, a bar is created under Section 438 of the Code of CriminalProcedure to enlarge the accused on bail.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed 4 44criapeal836.25that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnessesincluding the statement of Komal Mahadev Kamble, who stated that sheher brother Viahnu Mahadev Kamble, her sister Jaya Mahadev Kambleare blind but they identify persons by their voice. Therefore, this witnessKomal Kamble cannot be relied on, as she had no occasion to see theincident. The other witnesses are there to just implicate theappellants/accused and no such incident has occurred. So alsorespondent No. 3 lodged the present FIR on 03.10.2025, when theincident has allegedly occurred on 01.10.2025, at about 10.00 p.m.,therefore, there is delay which falsify the incident. Therefore, the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants prays for enlarging theappellants/accused on bail.

Per-contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the applicationon the ground that as per the FIR, the incident has occurred in front ofthe house of the present respondent No. 3, abusing her on her caste atthe hands of the accused persons and the said incident was within thepublic view. So also, the witnesses intervened and separated theappellants/accused and the informant. The Investigating Officer hasrecorded the statement of witnesses, Satyabhama Mahadev Kamble, Komal Mahadev Kamble and Parshuram Laxman Shinde and ShilpaKiran Naikwade and others. He further submits that on perusal of thespot panchanama it appears that the incident of hurling abuses to theinformant/respondent No. 3 at the hands of accused persons hasoccurred in front of the house of the respondent No.3 on the road of 5 44criapeal836.25Lahuji Salve Chouk to the Water Tank Road. The said incident hasoccurred at 10.00 p.m. and it is witnessed by the people in the society, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the respondent No. 3informant specifically alleged about the occurrence of the incident ofabusement on her caste, at the hands of the accused persons occurredin-front of her house. The spot panchanama drawn by the InvestigatingOfficer shows that the house of the respondent No. 3 is situated on roadand it passes from the Lahuji Salve Sqare to the Water Tank Road. Theappellants/accused are the neighbiours of the respondent No. 3 and thesaid abusement on caste to the respondent No. 3 has occurred withinthe public view. The witnesses who intervened the quarrel andseparated the appellants and informant have categorically stated aboutabusement to the informant/respondent No. 3 on her caste, at the handsof the present appellants/accused. Therefore, considering the ratio laiddown in the case of Kiran V. Rajukmar Jivraj Jain (cited supra), sincethe instant abusement on the caste to the respondent No. 3/informantat the hands of the accused has occurred in front of informant’s house, which comes within the ambit of public view. Therefore, as per theprovisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the bar is created under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge theappellants/accused on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the learned trialCourt passed the impugned order and declined to grant anticipatory bail, which does not appear perverse, illegal and bad in law and no 6 44criapeal836.25interference is called for at the hands of this Court.

On 06.11.2025, this Court granted ad-interim anticipatorybail to the appellants/accused, therefore, the said order is herebyrecalled.

The appellants to surrender before the Investigating Officerwithin a period of two weeks from today.