Bombay High Court
Vilas Nagorav Punde And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps ... on 27 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6336
951B.951C.APEALS.636.637.2024. Judgment..odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.636 OF 2024
1. Gajanan Dagdu Lahudkar,
Aged about 55 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Mohan Ganesh Kale,
Aged about 35 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
3. Rambhau Pradhan Punde,
Aged about 45 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
4. Ganesh Ramesh Nimbekar,
Aged about 44 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
5. Nitin Hardas Punde,
Aged about 26 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
6. Mahadeo s/o Devidas Punde,
Aged 37 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
7. Anil Ramdas Mhaisane,
Aged about 44 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
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. Pramod Mahadeo Solanke,
Aged about 45 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
951B.951C.APEALS.636.637.2024. Judgment..odt
(2)
R/o. Mazhod,
Taluka and District Akola. .... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------
Mr. Ved R. Deshpande, Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for the respondent No.1 /State.
Mr. Vinay V. Sharma, appointed Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
------------------------------------------
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.637 OF 2024
1. Vilas Nagorav Punde,
Aged adult, Occupation : Labour.
2. Ram Mahadeo Nimbekar,
Aged about 26 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. Pramod Mahadeo Solanke,
Aged about 45 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Mazhod,
Taluka and District Akola. .... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------
Mr. Ved R. Deshpande, Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for the respondent No.1 /State.
Mr. Vinay V. Sharma, appointed Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 27.06.2025
951B.951C.APEALS.636.637.2024. Judgment..odt
(3)
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Present appeals are preferred under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 21.10.2024 passed
by the learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in
Criminal Bail Application Nos.619/2024 and 631/2024 by which the
applications of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail are
rejected.
4. The crime is registered against them on the basis of
report lodged by Pramod Mahadeo Solankhe on an allegations that
on 23.8.2024 at about 3.00 p.m. when he along with his mother
was working in his agricultural field at that time, appellants entered
into his agricultural field and asked them to vacate the said land
and abused them in filthy language. On the basis of the said report,
Police have registered the crime under Sections 74, 75(1), 189(1),
296, 115(2) and 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along
with Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(i)(w)(ii) and 3(1) (r)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989).
951B.951C.APEALS.636.637.2024. Judgment..odt
5. After registration of the crime, the appellants
approached to the Special Court for grant of bail but same was
rejected, hence these appeals.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that 'E'
class land is illegally occupied by the complainant and the said land
is used by the other agriculturists for grazing the cattle and on that
ground there was dispute between the villagers and the informant
and the community people. He invited my attention towards the
previous complaint filed by the appellant No.7 Anil Ramdas
Mhaisane against the informant. There are several requisitions filed
by the villagers regarding the conduct of the informant and to give
counterblast to the said complaint, the first information report was
lodged. He submitted that even accepting the allegations as it is,
there is omnibus allegation. No specific role is attributed to any of
the appellants. In view of that, bar will not attract.
7. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2 - complainant strongly opposed the appeals and submitted
that there are statements of the witnesses which shows that the
informant was insulted and humiliated by the present appellants by
using the filthy language, and therefore, bar under Section 18 of the
Act of 1989 will attract.
8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
recitals of the FIR as well as the documents which are filed on
951B.951C.APEALS.636.637.2024. Judgment..odt
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 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
of the Act of 1989 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
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
951B.951C.APEALS.636.637.2024. Judgment..odt
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.
9. 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, 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 21.10.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge,
Akola in Criminal Bail Application No.619/2024 and
Criminal Bail Application No.631/2024 are hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) In the event of arrest of the applicants, in
Criminal Appeal No.636/2024, namely, (1) Gajanan
Dagdu Lahudkar, (2) Mohan Ganesh Kale, (3)
Rambhau Pradhan Punde, (4) Ganesh Ramesh
Nimbekar, (5) Nitin Hardas Punde (6) Mahadeo
Devidas Punde and (7) Anil Ramdas Mhaisane and
in Criminal Appeal No.637/2024, namely, (1) Vilas
Nagorav Punde, (2) Ram Mahadeo Nimbekar in
connection with Crime No.471/2024, registered with
Police Station Patur, District Akola for the offences
punishable under Sections 74, 75(1), 189(1), 296,
951B.951C.APEALS.636.637.2024. Judgment..odt
115(2) and 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 along with Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(w)(i),
3(i)(w)(ii) and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
the appellants 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.
10. The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified
as per rules.
11. 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 17:28:17
