Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O Samadhan Tale And Other vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps ... on 27 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6347
951.951.A..apeal.634 & 635.2024.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.634 OF 2024
1. Gajanan Dagdu Lahudkar,
Aged about 55 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Shivala Ramrao Tale,
Aged about 36 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
3. Ganesh Shivram Kale,
Aged about 65 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
4. Mohan Ganesh Kale,
Aged about 35 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
5. Rambhau Pradhan Punde,
Aged about 45 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
6. Vaibhav @ Chotu Ramdas Mhaisane,
Aged about 36 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
7. Ganesh Ramesh Nimbekar,
Aged about 44 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
8. Vitthal Dilip Punde,
Aged about 20 Years,
Occupation : Student,
All R/o Mazhod,
Taluka and District Akola. ..... APPELLANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Patur,
Taluka Patur, District Akola.
951.951.A..apeal.634 & 635.2024.Judgment.odt
(2)
2. Amol s/o Subhash Daberao,
Aged about 33 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Belura, Taluka Patur,
District Akola. .... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------
Mr. Ved R. Deshpande, Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for the respondent No.1 /State.
Mr. S. B. Taywade, appointed Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
------------------------------------------
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.635 OF 2024
1. Santosh s/o. Samadhan Tale,
Aged about 48 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Yogesh s/o Santosh Punde,
Aged about 48 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
3. Vilas s/o Nagarao Punde,
Aged about adult Years,
Occupation : Labour,
4. Vinayak s/o Ganesh Kale,
Aged about 39 Years,
Occupation : Labour.
All R/o. Mazhod,
Taluka and District Akola. .... APPELLANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Patur,
Taluka Patur, District Akola.
2. Amol s/o Subhash Daberao,
Aged about 33 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
951.951.A..apeal.634 & 635.2024.Judgment.odt
(3)
R/o. Belura, Taluka Patur,
District Akola. .... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------
Mr. Ved R. Deshpande, Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for the respondent No.1 /State.
Mr. S. B. Taywade, appointed Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
----------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 27.06.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By preferring these appeals, the appellants have
challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge and
Additional Sessions Judge, Akola under the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by which
the applications of the present appellants for grant of anticipatory
bail is rejected. In Criminal Appeal No.634/2024 the appellants are,
namely, (1) Gajanan Dagdu Lahudkar, (2) Shivala Ramrao Tale, (3)
Ganesh Shivram Kale, (4) Mohan Ganesh Kale, (5) Rambhau
Pradhan Punde, (6) Vaibhav @ Chotu Ramdas Mhaisane, (7)
Ganesh Ramesh Nimbekar and (8) Vitthal Dilip Punde, and in
Criminal Appeal No.635/2024 the appellants are, namely, (1)
Santosh s/o. Samadhan Tale, (2) Yogesh s/o. Santosh Punde, (3)
Vilas s/o. Nagarao Punde and (4) Vinayak s/o. Ganesh Kale have
preferred these appeals.
951.951.A..apeal.634 & 635.2024.Judgment.odt
4. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by
Amol Subhash Daberao under Sections 326(g), 323, 296, 189(2)
and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with
Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
'the Act of 1989'). It is alleged that the complainant is handicapped
and is cultivating 3 acres of 'E' class land. On 27.8.2024 the
appellants along with other co-accused came in the said 'E' class
land and asked him to vacate the said field. He was asked to
vacate the said field within two days and he was assaulted by the
present appellants. It is further alleged that the appellant No.1
burnt the fencing and also taken the household articles and thereby
caused loss to him. On the basis of the said report, Police have
registered the crime against the present appellants.
5. After registration of the crime, the appellants
approached the Special Court for grant of anticipatory bail which
was rejected in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that as far
as allegations are concerned, which are false and baseless. He
invited my attention towards various requisitions filed by the
present appellants and the other villagers against the informant and
other persons alleging that the informant and the persons from his
community are not allowing them to graze their cattle on the said
951.951.A..apeal.634 & 635.2024.Judgment.odt
land and also threatened them that they would be implicated in the
false case. He submitted that these requisitions to the Police Officer
sufficiently shows that this crime is lodged only to keep the present
appellants behind bars. In fact, no such incident has taken place.
Moreover, he submitted that even accepting the allegations as it is,
it is an omnibus allegation levelled against the present appellants
and the utterance of the words which was allegedly made by the
appellants are in chorus. There is no specific allegations against
any of the persons. Considering omnibus allegations, the bar will
not attract. In view of that, they be protected by granting
anticipatory bail.
7. Learned APP strongly opposed the prayer on the ground
that the statements of various witnesses and the statement of the
informant specifically make out the case against the present
appellants, and therefore, bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989
will attract. In view of that, both appeals deserve to be dismissed.
He further submitted that the filthy language is used by the present
appellants, in view of that, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
deserves to be dismissed.
8. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 - informant also
endorsed the same contention and submitted that if the present
appellants are released on bail, there is apprehension of repetition
of the same incident.
951.951.A..apeal.634 & 635.2024.Judgment.odt
9. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
recitals of the FIR as well as the documents which are filed on
record and the statements of the witnesses which shows that there
was a dispute between the informant and his community people and
the other villagers. The villagers have filed several applications
against the informant and the other community members alleging
that they are threatened by these persons to implicate them in a
false crime. It further appears that general allegations are made
against all the appellants as far as the application of the Atrocities
Act is concerned. It is an omnibus allegation and the words used
are in the nature of a chorus. Thus, considering the bar under
Section 18 is concerned, it is now well settled that if prima faice
case is not made out, the bar will not attract. The application of the
Atrocities Act is dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Shajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala and another, in
Criminal Appeal No.2622/2024, decided on 23rd August,
2024, wherein it is held that all insults or intimidations to a
member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount
to an offence under the Act 1989 unless such insult or intimidation
is on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. By considering the catena of decisions, it is held
that offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not established
merely on the fact that complainant is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe unless there is intention to humiliate such
951.951.A..apeal.634 & 635.2024.Judgment.odt
member for the reason that he belongs to such community. In
other words, it is not the purport of the act that every act of
intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person, who is not a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person, who
belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, merely because it is committed against a
person who happens to be a member of the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.
10. In the light of above observations, if the allegation at
this stage on the basis of FIR is considered as well as the
investigation papers, it is an omnibus allegation and custodial
interrogation is not required and bar is not attracted. In view of
that, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
(i) Both appeals are allowed.
(ii) The order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge,
Akola in Criminal Application (A.B.A.) No.620/2024 and
Criminal Application (A.B.A.) No.617/2024 are hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) In the event of arrest of the appellants, in
Criminal Appeal No.634/2024, namely, (1) Gajanan
Dagdu Lahudkar, (2) Shivala Ramrao Tale, (3)
Ganesh Shivram Kale, (4) Mohan Ganesh Kale,
(5) Rambhau Pradhan Punde, (6) Vaibhav @
Chotu Ramdas Mhaisane, (7) Ganesh Ramesh
Nimbekar and (8) Vitthal Dilip Punde; appellants,
in Criminal Appeal No.635/2024, namely, (1) Santosh
951.951.A..apeal.634 & 635.2024.Judgment.odt
s/o. Samadhan Tale, (2) Yogesh s/o. Santosh
Punde, (3) Vilas s/o. Nagarao Punde and (4)
Vinayak s/o. Ganesh Kale, in connection with Crime
No.473/2024, registered with Police Station Patur,
District Akola for the offences punishable under
Sections 326(g), 323, 296, 189(2) and 115(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections
3(2)(va), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, shall be released on anticipatory bail on
executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one
solvent surety in the like amount.
(iv) The appellants shall attend the proceeding before
the Special Court without seeking any exemption
unless there are exceptional circumstances.
(v) The appellants shall not induce, threat or promise
any witnesses, who are acquainted with the facts of the
present case.
11. The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified
as per rules.
12. Both appeals are disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/07/2025 19:19:57
