Bombay High Court
Xyz And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 September, 2025
(1) Appeal-715-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.715 OF 2024
1] XYZ (VICTIM)
2] ABC (INFORMANT) ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police
Through Begumpura Police Station,
Aurangabad Taluka and District Aurangabad
2] Ilyas s/o. Ahmed Khan
Age: 53 Years: Occu: Business
3] Shaheen Fatema w/o. Ilyas Khan
Age: 47 Years, Occu. Doctor,
4] Sultan Mehdi s/o Ilyas Khan
21 years, Occu: Education.
5] Khan Umaima D/o. Ilyas Khan
Age: 22 Years, Occu: Education,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are resident of
Plot No.9, Amkhas Road, Near Dilras Colony
Shahin Bagh, Aurangabad.
Taluka and District Aurangabad.
Ethape
(2) Appeal-715-2024
6] Shaikh Shahed s/o. Shaikh Mukhtar
Age: 23 Years, Occu: Education
R/o. Mehmood Pura, Patel Wada,
Opp. Taj Hotel, Aurangabad.
Taluka and District Aurangabad. ....RESPONDENTS
(ACCUSED)
Smt. Rashmi S. Kulkarni and Ms. Namita P. Thole, Advocates for
Appellants.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. S. R. Shirsath h/f Mr. R. B. Gite, Advocates for Respondent Nos.
2 to 6.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 19th AUGUST 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th SEPTEMBER 2025.
PC :-
1. Heard Smt. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr.
Jadhav, the learned APP for Respondent-State and Mr. Shirsath, the
learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. This appeals is heard
finally at the stage of admission with consent of the parties.
2. This appeal arises out of an offence bearing Crime No.94 of 2024
dated 07.04.2024 registered with Begumpura Police Station,
Ethape
(3) Appeal-715-2024
Aurangabad. Initially, the crime was registered for offences punishable
under Sections 354, 324, 323, 427, 143, 147, 149, 504 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Subsequently, Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, were added. This application is filed by original
informant/appellant No.2, who lodged the FIR with Begumpura Police
Station. The informant is appellant No.2. Appellant No.1 is the victim.
3. The impugned order is passed by learned Special Judge &
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Bail Petition No. 856 of 2024,
granting anticipatory bail to Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The complainant
approached Begumpura Police Station alleging that, on 06.04.2024 at
around 08:00 p.m. in the evening, she had been to the house of in-laws
with her sister alongwith domestic servant victim. There was a
matrimonial dispute pending between her sister and her in-laws. On
reaching there, accused no.1, husband, his sister and other accused
assaulted them. Accused Iliyas father-in-law of sister even tried to
Ethape
(4) Appeal-715-2024
assault the informant with knife. In the incident, she received two
injuries of knife on her shoulder. The glass of window was broken, and
one piece of glass struck her thereby she received one more injury. Her
clothes were torn, and she was confined in a room. It is further alleged
that the domestic servant was also outraged by accused Sultan and Iliyas
by trying to tear her clothes. During that incident, they also uttered the
words in the name of caste of servant. All of them were rescued by
father of the informant. On that, crime came to be registered. Though
initially, it was registered only under IPC sections, later on, provisions of
sections under Atrocities Act came to be added. The accused persons
approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail. The
same was granted to accused No.2 to 6 by way of impugned order, and
thus, the original informant has approached this Court seeking
cancellation of bail.
4. The appellants have filed additional affidavit on 09.06.2025
bringing on record material, subsequent facts, orders passed by the
Ethape
(5) Appeal-715-2024
Court in the proceeding before the family court, and subsequent FIR etc.
5. Ms. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the appellants, vehemently
argued that the learned trial Judge went to far in granting anticipatory
bail to the accused persons. There is a bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of
the Atrocities Act to entertain application for anticipatory bail. These
sections specifically provide that the provisions of Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. are not applicable when offences punishable under the Atrocities
Act are made out. In the present case, it is clear that the domestic
servant was abused in the name of her caste. While doing so, her clothes
were torn, outraging her modesty, by two accused persons, namely, Iliyas
and Sultan. It is the accused and the informant who are close relatives.
There is a previous background i.e. in January 2024, one FIR was lodged
by the mother of the victim and the informant as the accused had
entered the house and had taken the child of the victim forcibly since
she was staying separately with her parents. In that case, bail had
already been granted in the event of arrest. After addition of section
Ethape
(6) Appeal-715-2024
363 of IPC in that offence, bail came to be cancelled. The father of the
husband of the victim was also arrested in connection with offence
under POCSO Act and NDPS Act. He is presently behind the bar. On
06.04.2024, the mother was called by the victim to see the child.
Therefore informant and victim had been the house of the accused.
There the assault took place resulting the injuries. Though there is cross
FIR by co-accused, the same is only as counterblast. The said cross
complaints also show that the child of the couple is with the husband.
The learned trial Judge inspite of specific argument about the bar under
Section 18-A, allowed the application. She argued about the subsequent
conduct of the accused persons. The subsequent conduct shows that the
accused persons have not abided by the orders passed by the learned
Family Court in respect of custody of child. In family Court, appeal
challenging the interim relief is also refused, and still, the custody of the
child is with the husband. Now, the father of the husband is even from
Aurangabad. On such grounds, she submits that the bail of the present
respondents deserves to be cancelled.
Ethape
(7) Appeal-715-2024
6. Mr. Shirsath, the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to
6/accused vehemently opposed the appeal. He submits that there is even
FIR lodged by accused within gap of 10 days. It cannot be said that the
FIR is counterblast. He submits that there is CCTV footage where entire
episode is captured. The said footage does not show any role of the
accused. The FIR filed by the respondents is first in time. It is now more
than a year that the accused are protected by liberty, and till now, no any
instance is alleged of misuse of liberty. He thus submits that this appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Jadhav, the learned APP supports the case of the appellant. It is
submitted that the bail could not have been granted. The recovery is yet
to be made of the incriminating material i.e. knife used by accused
Iliyas. Thus, the learned APP prays for cancellation of bail application.
8. This Court has seen the FIR and charge-sheet. During the course of
argument, the appellants relied upon the judgments in the cases of
Ethape
(8) Appeal-715-2024
Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Ors .1 and Kanwar Singh
Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.2
9. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court has made observation about the Atrocities in society and practices
of untouchability etc. those are still prevalent. It is considered that the
provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are by way of exception. It is
considered that the people from scheduled castes and schedule tribes
can hardly muster the courage to speak against upper caste persons. The
provisions of Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act are therefore specifically
made. It is held that the bail ought not to be granted in such cases. The
provisions of Section 18 of the said Act are considered on the touchstone
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is held that the provision is
mandatory and needs to be adhered to. The provisions needs to be
made.
1 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 727
2 AIR 2013 SC 296
Ethape
(9) Appeal-715-2024
10. In the case of Kanwar Singh Meen (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
considered the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act and held
that the grant of anticipatory bail is only by way of exception and when
there is a specific bar to apply the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,
no anticipatory bail be entertained.
11. It is seen that the complaint was filed by Iliyas bearing FIR No. 93
of 2024 with Begumpura Police Station just prior to registering the
present FIR. The learned Sessions Judge by way of impugned order
observed that the crime was registered only under IPC Sections. The
Atrocities Act sections are added subsequently. The facts mentioned in
the FIR that the victims were called by in-laws of her sister does not
appear to be probable as there are strained relations. He further
observed that it is therefore not probable that the victim and informant
would go there. The allegations of outraging modesty are made against
father-in-law of the informant namely, Iliyas. So far as other allegations,
there is no specific allegation under the Atrocities Act. In that view, it is
Ethape
( 10 ) Appeal-715-2024
held that bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities Act could not
be attracted and allowed the bail application.
12. This Court finds that there are counter FIRs. The relations between
the parties are strained, as is clear from the reference to other litigation
in the family Court. This Court, in appeal, has examined the impugned
order. This Court finds that the impugned order takes a probable view.
This Court does not find any perversity in the order. This court,
consequently, does not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal
therefore deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Ethape
