Bombay High Court
Sandiip Damodar Nandokar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 16 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5568
1 84.APEAL.258-2025 JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2025
Sandip Damodar Nandokar,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Gaigaon Kd. Ta. Shegaon,
District Buldhana. APPELLANT
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Shegaon Rural Police Station,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dsitt. Buldana. RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. H.V. Dhage, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. A.A. Madiwale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 16th JUNE, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By preferring this Appeal, the Appellant has
2 84.APEAL.258-2025 JUDGMENT.odt
challenged the order passed by the Special Judge, Khamgaon in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 219/2025 dated 09.05.2025
rejecting the application of the present Appellant for grant of
Anticipatory Bail.
4. Apprehending the arrest in the Crime No. 24/2025
registered with Police Station Shegaon Rural under Sections
309(6), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter to be referred as "the Atrocities Act" for short), the
Appellant approached this Court for pre arrest bail in the event
of his arrest, which came to be rejected. Crime is registered
against him on the basis of the report lodged by Prajwal Jagdeo
Ikhare on an allegation that when he was proceeding on his
motorcycle at that time one motorcyclists came in front of him
restrained him and snatched the amount from his pocket and
assaulted him and abused him on his caste. On the basis of the
said report Police have registered the crime.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant, who
submitted that, as far as the allegations are concerned to attract
3 84.APEAL.258-2025 JUDGMENT.odt
the provisions of the Atrocities Act there is no specific allegation
against the present Appellant. Mere saying that he referred the
caste is not sufficient to attract the bar under Section 18 of the
Atrocities Act. He further submitted that, as far as the custodial
interrogation is concerned, which is not required. The Appellant
has already cooperated with the investigating agency. In view of
that, the Appellant be protected by granting anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP for the Respondent/State, strongly
opposed the Appeal on the ground that, not only the informant
but the statements of eye witnesses discloses the involvement of
the present Appellant in the above said crime. There are abuses
on the caste, and therefore, bar under Section 18 of the
Atrocities Act will attract and in view of that, the Appeal
deserves to be rejected and the Special Court has already
rejected the same, and therefore, Appeal be devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed.
7. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the
entire investigation papers, it reveals that, the only allegation is
that the present Appellant has referred the caste of the
Informant and abused him in filthy language. This is not
4 84.APEAL.258-2025 JUDGMENT.odt
supported by the eye witnesses of the incident, which only
discloses that the Informant was abused by the present
Appellant in filthy language. As far as the allegation regarding
the abuse on the caste is concerned, is not supported by any of
the witnesses, and therefore, bar under Section 18 of the
Atrocities Act, will not attract.
8. As the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, is
not attracted, and therefore, the prayer of the Appellant
deserved to be considered by appreciating that whether his
custodial interrogation is required. The statement of the
witnesses as to the snatching of the amount is concerned, it is
also not supported to the case of the present Informant.
Considering the statement of the eye witnesses, admittedly bar
under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is not attracted, and the
custodial interrogation of the present Appellant is not required
for recovery of money. In view of that, the Appeal deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i. The Appeal is allowed.
ii. The order passed by the learned Special Judge,
Khamgaon in Anticipatory Bail Application
5 84.APEAL.258-2025 JUDGMENT.odt
No. 219/2025 dated 09.05.2025, rejecting the
application for grant of anticipatory bail, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
iii. The Appellant - Sandip Damodar Nandokar, shall be
released on anticipatory bail in the event of his
arrest, in connection with Crime No. 24/2025
registered with Police Station Shegaon Rural under
Sections 309(6), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on executing
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent
surety in the like amount.
iv. The Appellant shall attend the concerned Police
Station once in a week i.e. on every Monday
between 10.00 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. till filing of the
charge-sheet.
v. The Appellant shall not induce, threat or promise
any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of
the case.
9. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
( URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/06/2025 14:25:30
