Bombay High Court
Ramesh S/O Rustumrao Mundhe And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Jaulka ... on 24 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6153
1 958appeal259.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2025
APPELLANTS 1. Ramesh s/o Rustumrao Mundhe,
Age 56 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
2. Sarthak s/o Ramesh Mundhe,
Age 23 Years, Occu: Agriculturist,
Both 1 and 2 R/o Malegaon Najik Kinhi,
Post Amna, Tah. Malegaon,
District Washim.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS 1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station, Jaulka, Tah. Malegaon,
Distt. Washim.
2. Ramdas s/o Gajanan Girhe,
Age 43 years, Occu: Retired Army Officer,
R/o Kamlambeshwar, Tah. Malegaon,
Distt Washim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S. Thotange, counsel for appellants.
Mr. A.J. Gohokar, APP for respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 24/06/2025
rkn
2 958appeal259.2025.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsels appearing for the parties.
3. By preferring this appeal, the appellants have
challenged the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Washim, in
Criminal Bail Application No. 135/2025, by which the anticipatory
bail application of the present appellants was rejected.
4. The appellants are arraigned as accused on the basis
of the report lodged by Ramdas Gajanan Girhe, on an allegation
that on 05/05/2025, while he was proceeding from Malegaon to
Washim, a motorcycle came in front of him, pulled him over,
abused him, and assaulted him by slapping. It is further alleged
that they have abused him on his caste and also assaulted him by
means of a stone, due to which he sustained the injuries. On the
basis of the said report, police have registered the crime under
Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va)
of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989').
rkn
3 958appeal259.2025.odt
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, who
submitted that appellants are apprehending the arrest at the hands
of police in connection with the above-said crime. Initially, they
approached the Special Court for grant of anticipatory bail in the
event of their arrest, but the same was rejected by the Sessions
Judge, who observed that there is a bar under Section 18 of the
Act of 1989. He submitted that, as omnibus allegations is levelled
against all the appellants, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of
1989 will not attract, and therefore, the observation of the Special
Judge is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
He further invited my attention towards recitals of the
First Information Report (FIR) and submitted that, except the
reference of the caste, there is nothing mentioned in the FIR that
the present appellants have abused the informant by uttering the
words that will humiliate and insult him. Thus, the bar under
Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not attract.
6. The learned APP strongly opposed the said
application and submitted that recitals of the FIR show that by
referring the caste, he was abused. Thus, the bar under Section 18
of the Act of 1989 will attract, and therefore, the order passed by
rkn
4 958appeal259.2025.odt
the Sessions Judge is to be maintained.
7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals of
the FIR, it reveals that the allegation against the present appellants
is ominous in nature and from the entire sentence i.e. " -----------rqEgh
vka/kqMs y; ektys rqEgkyk ghldk nk[kokp ykxrks] rqEgkyk vkj{k.k vlY;keqGs
ukSdjh ykxyh ukghrj rq>h dk; vkSdkr gksrh uksdjhoj ykxk;ph] vkehZP;k
ukSdjhik;h rq xkMh ?ksryh vls Eg.kqu------------", it appears that there is no
specific allegation against the present appellants that they have
used the words on his caste, humiliated, and insulted the
informant. Thus, considering the nature of the allegations levelled
against the present appellants, the bar under Section 18 of the Act
of 1989 will not attract, as omnibus allegations is levelled against
all the appellants. As far as custodial interrogation is concerned,
which is also not required, the allegation of assault by means of a
stone is against the other co-accused.
8. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against
the present appellants, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989
will not attract, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
a] Criminal appeal is allowed.
rkn
5 958appeal259.2025.odt
b] The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Washim in Criminal Bail Application No. 135/2025,
rejecting the anticipatory bail application is hereby
quashed and set aside.
c] In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.
141/2025 registered with Police Station Jaulka,
Tah. Malegaon, District Washim for the offences
punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352,
351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)
(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989, the appellants
namely (1) Ramesh s/o Rustumrao Mundhe and (2)
Sarthak s/o Ramesh Mundhe, shall be released on
bail, on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with
one solvent surety in the like amount.
d] The appellants shall attend the concerned police
station once in a week on Monday between
10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and shall cooperate with the
investigating agency.
rkn
6 958appeal259.2025.odt
e] The appellants shall not induce, threat or promise any
witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the
case.
Criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
