Bombay High Court
Manoj Bhaskarrao Kumbhare vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 26 March, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:3231
1 apeal104.25.J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104 OF 2025
Manoj Bhaskarrao Kumbhare,
Aged 42 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Ambika Nagar, Near Anil Dalan
Kendra, Tapowan Area, Amravati,
Tq. and District: Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station Gadge Nagar,
Taluka and District: Amravati.
2. Ashok Harimanji Wankhade,
Aged 53 years, R/o New Ambika Nagar,
Near Anil Dalan Kendra, Tapowan Area, Amravati,
Tq. and District: Amravati. ....... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. V. Acharya, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. V. A. Thakare, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. N. J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATE: 26th MARCH, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has challenged
the order passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions
2 apeal104.25.J.odt
Judge, Amravati dated 13.02.2025 by which the application of the
present appellant for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.
4. The appellant who is working as an Assistant Lecture
and resident of Amravati approached this Court for grant of
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.81/2025 registered
at Police Station Gadge Nagar, Amravati for the offence punishable
under Section 118(1) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section
3(1)(r), 3(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the crime is registered
on the basis of respondent no.2 - Ashok Harimanji Wankhade on
an allegation that he is a resident of Murtizapur, District Akola and
serving. The appellant is residing in front of his house, he is aware
that the informant belongs to Scheduled Caste. However, on
14.04.2024 he abused him on his caste. On 28.01.2025 at about
05:45 p.m. in the public view he came on the two-wheeler near to
him and abused him by saying "rq lkY;k /ksMX;k ektyk dk vls
EgVY;ko#u eh xkMhP;k [kkyh mrjyks o eukst dqHkkajs ;kyk EgVys dh] ljG
cksyk" and hold his collar, torned his clothes and assaulted him by
means of bricks due to which he has sustained the injuries.
Thereafter, he threatened him by abusing on his caste. On the basis
of the said report, police have registered the crime against the
3 apeal104.25.J.odt
present appellant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, who
submitted that as far as the allegations are concerned which are
baseless. The incident has not occurred within the public view only
due to the hatred between both of them this false report is filed
against the present appellant, the present appellant is serving as
an Assistant Lecturer and such type of behaviour is not committed
by him but only to harass in this false report. He further submitted
that as far as the custodial interrogation is concerned which is not
required. In view of that, he be protected by granting anticipatory
bail.
6. The learned APP and the learned counsel for the
complainant strongly opposed the same on the ground that not
only the words of the informant but the entire incident was
recorded in a CCTV footage which shows that the present
appellant came in front of the informant and who was fully aware
that informant belongs to the Scheduled Caste abused him on his
caste in a specific words and also assaulted. The medical certificate
which is collected during the investigation also substantiate the
said fact as the informant has received two injuries in the nature of
abrasion and contusion. There are statements of the witnesses
4 apeal104.25.J.odt
recorded during the investigation which also substantiate the said
fact. Thus, bar under Section 18 will attract in view of that, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
investigation papers it reveals that the appellant and the informant
are the neighbours. As per the allegation of the informant initially
on 14.04.2024 the present appellant abused him and other caste
members on their caste. As far as the incident dated 28.01.2025 is
concerned it is alleged that the informant was abused on his caste
in a filthy language and also threatened him. This entire incident is
recorded in a CCTV footage and the CCTV footage panchnama is
also drawn by the Investigating Agency. Thus, the investigation
papers shows the involvement of the present appellant in the
alleged offence. The appellant is prosecuted of the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 which shows that when a person who belongs to the
Scheduled Caste is intention inserted or intimated by a person who
is not of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intention to
humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any
place within the public view said to have committed the offence
5 apeal104.25.J.odt
punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. As far as the public view is concerned, the First Information
Report specifically shows that the alleged incident has taken place
on the public road. The CCTV footage panchanma also discloses
that alleged incident has taken place on the public road.
The statements of the witness namely Damni Roshan Bagde also
witnessed the said incident, she has also stated that the alleged
incident has taken place on the public road. Thus, as far as the
aspect of the public view is concerned it reveals that the alleged
incident has taken place within the public view. The learned APP
vehmently submitted that as the anticipatory bail application is
barred under Section 18 the appeal is not maintainable and
deserves to be dismissed. In view of Section 18 it shows that
nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any
case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having
committed an offence under this Act. At the stage of grant of an
anticipatory bail this Court has to consider the material before it
and on examination it is to be ascertained where the bar is
attracted or not. It is also well settled that though Section 18 of
the Act creates a bar for invoking the provisions of Section 438
Cr.P.C., still it is open for this Court to see whether prima facie case
6 apeal104.25.J.odt
is made out to sustain the prosecution. Section 18-A also states
about the bar which says that for the purposes of this section a
preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First
Information Report against any person and the investigating
officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any
person, against whom an accusation of having committed of an
offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than
that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply. Sub-section
(2) of Section 18-A states about the provisions of Section 438 of
the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding
any judgment or order or direction of any Court.
8. In the light of the above provisions the facts of the
present case are taken into consideration, the ingredients of the
offence reveals from the recitals of the FIR as it is specifically
mentioned in the First Information Report as to the knowledge of
the present appellant that the informant belongs to the Scheduled
Caste. Moreover, the informant and the appellant are neighbours
and therefore, knowledge to the present appellant is obvious.
The statement of the various witnesses also shows that the alleged
incident has taken place within the public view. From the nature of
the allegations it reveals that the words used by the present
7 apeal104.25.J.odt
appellant are with intent to insult and humiliate the informant.
Thus, at this stage, prima facie material reveals against the present
appellant, and therefore, bar under Section 18 will attract. In view
of that, the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
I proceed to pass the following order:
The appeal is hereby dismissed.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
NSN
Signed by: Mr. N.S. Nikhare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/03/2025 10:36:44
