Bombay High Court
Gahinath S/O Eknath Mhaske vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 24 March, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:3183
J.59.cri.apeal.578.24.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.578 OF 2024
Gahinath s/o Eknath Mhaske
Age 38 years, Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Giroli Khd., Tq. Deulgaon (Raja),
District Buldana
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Deulgaon (Raja),
District Buldana
2. Sau. Sandhya w/o Tryambak Zine,
Age 43 years, Occupation - Cultivator,
R/o Giroli Khd. Deulgaon (Raja),
District Buldana
...RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________
Mr. A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, A.P.P. for the State.
Ms K. Deshpande, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : MARCH 24, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel
for the parties.
2. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has challenged the
order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana and the
J.59.cri.apeal.578.24.odt 2/4
Special Judge in Anticipatory Bail Application No.335/2024 by which
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the
informant has lodged report against the present appellant as there is a
previous dispute on account of the boundary of the agricultural land
since long. The allegation against the present appellant is that on
30/07/2024 he abused the informant along with the other co-accused.
In fact, these allegations are baseless and omnibus. He further submitted
that the other allegation is only to the extent of manhandling the
informant. Thus, the offence is not made out against the present
appellant, and therefore, bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short
'the Act of 1989') will not attract. In view that, he be protected by
granting anticipatory bail.
4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for respondent No.2
strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that in view of the bar under
Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
deserves to be rejected. There is a specific allegation against the present
appellant that he has abused the informant on her caste. In view of that,
the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana and the
Special Judge deserves to be maintained.
J.59.cri.apeal.578.24.odt 3/4
5. I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the
recitals of the FIR as well as the investigation papers from which it
reveals that there was a previous dispute between the appellant and the
informant on account of the agricultural land. As far as the allegations
are concerned, omnibus allegation is levelled against the appellant that
he has abused the informant on her caste and other allegation as to the
assault is concerned which is only to the extent of manhandling. Thus,
considering the nature of the allegations, the bar under Section 18 of the
Act of 1989 is not attracted, and therefore, the appellant has made out a
case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 19/09/2024 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Buldana and the Special Judge in
Anticipatory Bail Application No.335/2024 rejecting the
anticipatory bail application of the appellant is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) In the event of arrest, the appellant - Gahinath s/o
Eknath Mhaske in connection with Crime No.297/2024
registered with Police Station, Deulgaon (Raja), District
J.59.cri.apeal.578.24.odt 4/4
Buldana for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115,
351(1), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, be released on anticipatory bail, on
executing PR 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 as and when required for the investigation purpose
and shall cooperate with the investigating agency.
(v) The appellant 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.
6. The contravention of any of the condition would lead to the
cancellation of bail.
7. The appeal stands disposed of.
8. The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per rules.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
*Divya
