Bombay High Court
Deepak S/O Vijay Ghonge vs State Of Maharashtra Thr P.S.O ... on 13 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5591
J.970.appeal.100.25.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100 OF 2025
1. Deepak s/o Vijay Ghonge
Age 33 Years, Occ. - Farmer,
2. Uddhav s/o Madan Ghonge
Age 28 years, Occ. - Farmer,
3. Jagan s/o Ganpat Ghonge,
Age 54 years, Occ. Farmer,
4. Parmeshwar s/o Karbharti Ghonge,
Age 33 years, Occ. Farmer
1 to 4 R/o. At Bamkhed,
Tq. Deulgaon Rajan
District Buldana - 443206 (Maharashtra)
...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. State Of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O. Sindkhedraja,
District Buldhana
2. Sau. Seema s/o Rajendra Jadhav
Age 29 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. At Bamkhed, Tq. Deulgaon Raja,
District Buldana - 443206
...RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________
Mr. A.M. Jaltare, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms S.S. Dhote, APP for the State.
Ms A.R. Sharma, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2.
_______________________________________________________
J.970.appeal.100.25.odt 2/7
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : JUNE 13, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel
for the parties.
2. By preferring this appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, the appellants herein have challenged the order passed by
the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, rejecting
the application for grant of anticipatory bail bearing Criminal Bail
Application No.4/2024 dated 30/01/2025.
3. The appellants are apprehending the arrest at the hands of
police in connection with Crime No. 194/2023 registered with Police
Station Sindkhed Raja for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 452, 354, 354-B, 395, 324, 323, 427 and read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(t), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The report is
lodged by Seema Rajendra Jadhav on an allegation that on 21/08/2023
around 8.00 p.m, the present appellants along with the other co-accused
came to her grocery shop adjacent to her house and demanded the
J.970.appeal.100.25.odt 3/7
Gutkha packets, for which she denied. On that count, they not only
abused her but also caused the damage to her grocery shop with a
bamboo stick. The accused i.e. appellant No. 1 lifted the shutter of her
shop by his hand and again made a demand of contraband Gutkha. On
her denial, he got annoyed and abused her in a filthy language and also
snatched Rs. 11,000/- from the cash box of the shop and also thrown
the grocery articles from the shop. It is further alleged that subsequent
to the act of the appellant No. 1, the other accused also entered into her
shop by holding sticks in their hands and caused the damage to her
shop. The first incident happened on 21/08/2023, thereafter all the
villagers decided to settle the dispute, and therefore, she has not lodged
the report. However, subsequent to the said incident on 01/09/2023
again, when her daughter was about to proceed in a school in the
vehicle of accused No.16. The accused No.16 denied her the right to
take in the vehicle by saying that they are boycotting the community
and also used the words against her daughter, which insulted her and
humiliated her. They have also caused damage to the photo-frame of Dr.
Baba Saheb Ambedkar. On the basis of the said report, police have
registered the crime against the present appellants and other
co-accused. After registration of the crime, the present appellants
applied for the grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected and
hence, this appeal.
J.970.appeal.100.25.odt 4/7
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that as far as
the allegations regarding the abuses on the caste are concerned, which
is made only against appellant No.1 and not appellant Nos.2 to 4. He
submitted that even accepting the allegation against appellant No.1 i.e.
inside the house, and therefore, not within the public view. He further
submitted that even accepting the allegation it is only to the extent of
referring the caste. Mere reference of the caste is not sufficient to attract
the provisions of the Atrocities Act, therefore, bar under Section 18 of
the Atrocities Act will not attract.
5. Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for respondent
No.2 strongly opposed the appeal on the ground that there is specific
allegations as far as appellant No.1 is concerned as to the abuses on the
caste is concerned. They both have submitted that there is specific
allegations against appellant No.1 and the recitals of the FIR shows that
he has abused the victim in a very filthy language. In view of that, bar
under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act will attract, and therefore, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals of the
FIR and the investigation papers, it reveals that Crime No.194/2023 was
registered, on the basis of the report lodged by Seema Rajendra Jadhav
alleging that she is a resident of Bamkhed Tah. Deulgaon Raja, District
J.970.appeal.100.25.odt 5/7
Buldhana. On the day of incident i.e. on 21/08/2023 she was abused as
well as the appellant No.1 has outraged her modesty by holding her
hand. It further reveals that there is specific allegation against appellant
No.1 is concerned as far as filthy language on the caste. As far as other
appellants are concerned there is omnibus allegation levelled against
them which is general in nature. Thus, considering the nature of the
allegation against appellant No.1 admittedly, the bar under Section 18
of the Atrocities Act will attract against appellant No.1. As far as
appellant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned there is omnibus allegations levelled
against them.
7. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Shajan Skaria Vs The State Of Kerala & Anr., in Criminal Appeal
No.2622 Of 2024 (Arising Out Of Slp (Crl.) No. 8081 Of 2023) dated
23/08/2024, wherein it has observed that a plain reading of the above
provisions shows that there should be intentional insult, the persons
who belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes.
8. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
admittedly, the appellant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to be released on
anticipatory bail whereas bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act will
attract against appellant No.1. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be
partly allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
J.970.appeal.100.25.odt 6/7
(i) The criminal appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The prayer of appellant No.1 for grant of anticipatory
bail is hereby rejected.
(iii) The appellant Nos.2 to 4 namely 2) Uddhav s/o
Madan Ghonge, 3) Jagan s/o Ganpat Ghonge, 4)
Parmeshwar s/o Karbharti Ghonge, shall be released
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest their arrest, in
connection with Crime 194/2023 registered with Police
Station Sindkhed Raja for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 452, 354, 354-B, 395, 324, 323, 427 and
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)
(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, on executing P.R. Bond of
Rs. 25,000/- each with one solvent surety each in the like
amount.
(iv) The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Buldana in Criminal Bail Application Nos.4/2024 dated
30/01/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
J.970.appeal.100.25.odt 7/7
(v) The appellant Nos.2 to 4 shall not induce, threat or
promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of
the present case.
(vi) The appellant Nos.2 to 4 shall attend the concerned
police station once in a week on Sunday between 10.00 a.m.
to 01.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet.
9. The appeal is disposed of.
10. The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per
rules.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
*Divya
