Bombay High Court
Taibai / Tai W/O Nandu Mohite And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 30 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6131
1 59.APEAL.236-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2025
1. Taibai @ Tai W/o Nandu Mohite,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Labour,
2. Chagan S/o Harising Mohite,
Aged about 72 years, Occ. Labour,
Both R/o Nimkheda, At present
residing at Wasadi, Tahsil-Sangrampur,
District: Buldhana. APPELLANTS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Sonala Police Station,
District Buldhana, Maharashtra.
2. Smt. Gayatri W/o Akash Sagale,
Aged 22 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o Wasadi, Tah-Sangrampur,
District: Buldhana RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. M.P. Ladhe, Advocate for the Appellants.
Ms. Sneha Dhote, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. R.S. Bhalerao, Advocate (Appointed) for the Respondent
No.2.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 30th JUNE, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 59.APEAL.236-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By preferring this Appeal, the Appellants had
challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Khamgaon, District Buldhana in Bail Application No. 189/2025
dated 24.04.2025 rejecting the application of the present
Appellants for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The present Appellants are apprehending arrest at
the ends of police in connection with Crime No.105/2025
registered at police station Sonala, District Buldhana for the
offences punishable under Sections 74, 75, 115(2), 351(2),
351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short "Atrocities Act").
5. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged
by one Gayatri Akash Sagale on an allegation that 10.04.2025
she had been to the house of her cousin sister. At that time, she
3 59.APEAL.236-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
was abused by the present Appellants on her caste and also
threatened her. On the basis of the said report, police have
registered the crime against the present Appellants.
6. After registration of the crime, the Appellants
approached to the Special Court for grant of pre-arrest bail but
the same was rejected.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants, who
submitted that, as far as the allegations of abuses on the caste
are concerned, general allegations are levelled against the
present Appellants i.e. the omnibus allegations. The bar under
Section 18 of the Atrocities Act will not attract as omnibus
allegations are levelled against the present Appellants, and
therefore, they be protected by granting ad-interim anticipatory
bail.
8. Learned APP strongly opposed the Appeal and
submitted that in view of bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities
Act, the Appeal itself is not maintainable, and therefore, the
Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
4 59.APEAL.236-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.2/Complainant, has endorsed the same contentions.
10. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
recitals of the FIR and the documents filed on record it reveals
that regarding the said incident, cross-complaints are filed. As
far as the allegations against the present Appellants are
concerned, admittedly, there is no specific allegation against the
present Appellants. The omnibus allegations are levelled against
the present Appellants as well as the other co-accused. The issue
regarding the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is
recently considered 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),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"The dictum of various decisions that the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely
on the fact that the complainant is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an
intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that
he belongs to such community. In other words, it is not the
purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult
or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of
a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who
belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would
attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is
committed against a person who happens to be a member
of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary,
5 59.APEAL.236-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the
reason for the intentional insult or intimidation is that the
person who is subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe. We say so because the object behind
the enactment of the Act, 1989 was to provide stringent
provisions for punishment of offences which are targeted
towards persons belonging to the SC/ST communities for
the reason of their caste status."
11. In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court and considering the allegations levelled against the present
Appellants, at this stage, there is omnibus allegations against both
the Appellants, and therefore, ad-interim protection granted to the
Appellants deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER
i. The Appeal is allowed.
ii. The ad interim protection granted to the present
Appellants by order dated 06.05.2025, is hereby
confirmed on the condition that, they shall attend the
concerned Police Station once in a week i.e. on every
Tuesday between 10.00 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. and shall
cooperate with the investigating agency.
iii. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Khamgaon in Bail Application No.189/2025 dated
24.04.2025, rejecting the application for grant of
anticipatory bail, is hereby quashed and set aside.
6 59.APEAL.236-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
iv. The Appellants shall not induce, threat or promise any
witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case
either personally or by way of electronic media.
v. Fees of the learned Appointed Counsel be quantified as
per rules.
12. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
( URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/07/2025 17:55:37
