Bombay High Court
Bhima Mukunda Karad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 19 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:25299
*1* apeal639a641o25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2025
(For Regular Bail)
SUNIL BABAN WANVE
AND
SAMPAT BABAN WANVE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
KAKASAHEB MARUTI DHAGE
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025
(For Anticipatory Bail)
BHIMA MUKINDA KARAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
KAKASAHEB MARUTI DHAGE
...
Shri R.G. Hange and Shri A.R. Hange, Advocates for the
Appellants.
Shri G.O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1/ State.
Shri Dhananjay A. Mane, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
Reserved on : 16 September, 2025
Pronounced on : 19 September, 2025
ORDER :
-
1. By Criminal Appeal No.639/2025 for regular bail,
the appellants therein are praying for quashing and setting aside
the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Bail Application No.779/2025,
*2* apeal639a641o25.odt
whereas, by Criminal Appeal No.641//2025 for anticipatory bail,
the appellant is praying for quashing and setting aside the order
dated 11.08.2025 passed by the same Court in Criminal Bail
Application No.776/2025. By the impugned orders, the said
applications preferred by the appellants for grant of regular bail
and anticipatory bail, respectively, were rejected.
2. The above bail applications were preferred in Crime
bearing FIR No.212/2025 registered on 20.07.2025 with Shirur
Kasar Police Station, District Beed for the offences punishable
under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Atrocities Act'). The FIR
came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/ informant
(Kakasaheb Maruti Dhage).
3. In the FIR, respondent No.2 alleged that on
19.07.2025 at about 02:30 noon, while he and his friend
Prabhakar Sarjerao Sirsath were sitting and chitchatting in the
hall of Maruti Temple, Sampat Baban Wanve (appellant No.2 in
Criminal Appeal No.639/2025) was sleeping in the temple hall.
At that time, the brother of Sampat Wanve, namely, Sunil Baban
Wanve (appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.639/2025), who
*3* apeal639a641o25.odt
was heavily drunk, came there and he drank water from bottle
and spat the same on the person of the informant. Therefore, the
informant informed this incident to Sampat by waking up him
from sleep. Thereafter, the quarrel took place between them and
both Sampat and Sunil alleged to have abused the informant by
referring to his caste. At that time, his friend Prabhakar Sirsath
also came there and he tried to pacify the quarrel. However, he
was also assaulted with fist and kick blows. Thereafter, the
accused persons alleged to have threatened them of dire
consequences. After this incident, again the accused persons
alleged to have went to the house of informant and started giving
abuses. When the mother of informant came out of house, she
was also abused by referring to her caste. On the basis of these
allegations, the FIR came to be lodged on 20.07.2025 at about
18:40 hours.
4. According to the learned advocate for appellants,
respondent No.2/ informant has lodged FIR due to long standing
political rivalry between the parties. There are two political
groups in the village Tembhurni. One political group is of
Prabhakar Sirsath, who is friend of respondent No.2/ informant.
The appellant (Bhima Karad) in Criminal Appeal No.641/2025
and the said Prabhakar Sirsath had contested the election against
*4* apeal639a641o25.odt
each other from the same ward in the year 2022 and the appellant
Bhima Karad had defeated Prabhakar Sirsath. The daughter of
cousin of the informant, namely, Mangal Prakash Dhage had also
contested the election against one Pooja Ganesh Dhage, who
belonged to the group of appellant Bhima Karad. In the said
election also, Pooja Dhage defeated Mangal Dhage. Thereafter,
the Sarpanch of village was elected from the group of appellants.
Thus, in view of political enmity between two groups, the FIR
has been lodged by the informant. It is stated that the
supplementary statement of the informant was recorded wherein,
the informant alleged to have stated that the appellant Bhima
Karad abused the informant by referring to his caste and asked
him to withdraw the FIR. Therefore, the appellant Bhima Karad
came to be added as the accused.
5. The learned advocate for the appellants further
submitted that the incident took place between 14:30 to 15:00
hours on 19.07.2025 and the said Prabhakar Sirsath, who belongs
to the opponent party, along with the informant had gone to the
Police Station 19.07.2025 itself to register the FIR against the
appellants. However, the NC report was registered and on that
day, the informant did not lodge any report though he was very
much present along with Prabhakar Sirsath in the Police Station.
*5* apeal639a641o25.odt
On the next day i.e. 20.07.2025 at about 18:40 hours, the
informant again went to Police Station and lodged the FIR. Thus,
there is delay in lodging the FIR and it is lodged after thought.
6. The learned advocate for the appellants further
submitted that on the contrary, respondent No.2/ informant is
habitual offender and is facing trial for the offences punishable
under Sections 363, 366, 376(n) of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. Moreover, one Pooja
Ganesh Dhage, who is the elected member of the Village
Panchayat, has also filed Criminal Misc. Application
No.187/2022 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the informant and others for the offences
punishable under Sections 452, 327, 324, 323, 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, wherein, the learned JMFC, Shirur Kasar
directed the Police to investigate the said matter. Another Crime
No.140/2013 was also registered against Prabhakar Sirsath, who
is the friend of the informant, for the offences punishable under
Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus,
the learned advocate for the appellants stated that in view of long
standing political rivalry between the parties, the FIR has been
registered against the appellants and they have been falsely
implicated. In order to oppose the grant of bail to the appellants,
*6* apeal639a641o25.odt
the informant and his friend are trying to file frivolous
complaints against the appellants of threatening. According to
the learned advocate, there is no prima facie offence made out
under the provisions of the Atrocities Act against the present
appellants. However, in order to settle personal score and
political score, respondent No.2/ informant has deliberately filed
the FIR in question.
7. According to the learned advocate for the appellants,
the FIR registered against the appellants does not show any
offence made out against them and it also does not contain
necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under the
Atrocities Act. He submitted that in order to ascertain whether,
there is prima facie case made out against the accused for such
offences, such ingredients must show prima facie involvement of
the accused in such crime. The informant and his friend have
deliberately implicated the appellants in order to show that the
offence is committed in public view. He made the statement that
if the appellants are granted bail, they shall abide by each and
every condition put to them by this Court. He, therefore, prayed
for allowing these appeals.
8. Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the
appeals and contended that the appellants are involved in serious
*7* apeal639a641o25.odt
crime. The crime has taken place at a public place within a public
view. The appellants and their group members are threatening the
informant of dire consequences. Custodial interrogation of the
appellant (Bhima Karad) is necessary as other appellants/
accused are already arrested. The investigation is almost
completed and within a period of 2 to 3 days, the Investigating
Officer intends to file the charge-sheet. If the appellants are
released on bail, similar type of offences can be repeated. The
appellants and the victim being residing in the same village,
chances of causing law and order situation cannot be ruled out.
He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the appeals.
9. The learned advocate for respondent No.2/
informant also vehemently opposed the grant of any relief in
favour of the appellants. According to him, the incident took
place in broad day light and at public place. The accused persons
are influential and they are issuing threats to the informant and
his friends. If the appellants are granted bail, they will create
terror in the village and may again commit similar offence. The
contents of the FIR clearly make out a prima facie case against
the appellants. In view of the bar under Section 18 of the
Atrocities Act, the appellant (Bhima Karad) is not entitled for
grant of anticipatory bail. The learned advocate has relied on the
*8* apeal639a641o25.odt
recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kiran vs.
Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1886
to contend that if the offence under the provisions of the
Atrocities Act is made out, anticipatory bail cannot be granted by
disregarding the bar of Section 18.
10. After having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and after going through the material available
on record including investigation papers made available to me by
the learned APP, it is clear that the incident, which took place on
19.07.2025, came to be reported on the next day i.e. 20.07.2025.
The submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants
cannot be overlooked as regards the fact that the friend of
informant, namely, Prabhakar Sirsath had also gone to the Police
Station to register the crime against the appellants on 19.07.2025
itself along with the informant. However, the informant has not
filed the report on 19.07.2025. At this prima facie stage, it needs
to be considered as to why the informant has not lodged the
report on 19.07.2025 when he along with his friend had gone to
the Police Station on the same date after the alleged incident. The
presence of his friend Prabhakar Sirsath at the time of the alleged
incident on 19.07.2025 at Maruti Temple is also recorded by the
informant in his complaint. It thus appears that the informant is
*9* apeal639a641o25.odt
very close to Prabhakar Sirsath and as such, it seems that both
were trying to lodge the report against the appellants in order to
settle the political score. The candidates of the appellants'
fraction have defeated the candidates of the group of Prabhakar
Sirsath during the Village Panchayat elections. This position is
also not disputed by the learned advocate for respondent No.2.
Thus, it is evident that there is political rivalry between the
parties. The record prima facie reveals that the allegations
levelled against the appellants are nothing but to take revenge for
settling political score.
11. In Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795, the Honourable
Supreme Court has observed that the duty is cast on the Court to
verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether, the
offence under Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act has been prima
facie made out. In subsequent landmark judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union
Of India reported in AIR 2020 SC 1036, it has been observed
that if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for
applicability of the provisions of the Atrocities Act, the bar
created by Section 18 and Section 18(A) shall not apply. Further
in the very same judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court in
*10* apeal639a641o25.odt
paragraph No.32, which is the concurring view of one of the
Honourable Judge to the said judgment, it has been observed that
as far as the provision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail is
concerned, in cases where no prima facie materials exist
warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power
to direct a pre-arrest bail. While considering any application
seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two
interests: i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert the
jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders
made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is
made out as shown in the FIR.
12. Another landmark judgment on the issue is delivered
by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria vs. State of
Kerala, 2024 SCC Online SC 2249 : 2024 INSC 625 wherein,
the guidelines for determining the issue as regards "when can it
be said that a prima facie case is made out in a given FIR/
complaint?", has been elaborately discussed. In paragraph
Nos.47 and 48 of this judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court
has observed as under:-
"47. Prima facie is a Latin term that translates to
"at first sight" or "based on first impression". The
expression "where no prima facie materials exist
*11* apeal639a641o25.odt
warranting arrest in a complaint or FIR" should be
understood as "when based on first impression, no offence
is made out as shown in the FIR or the complaint". This
means that when the necessary ingredients to constitute
the offence under the Act, 1989 are not made out upon the
reading of the complaint, no case can be said to exist
prima facie.
48. As a sequitur, if the necessary ingredients to
constitute the offence under the Act, 1989 are not
disclosed on the prima facie reading of the allegations
levelled in the complaint or FIR, then in such
circumstances, as per the consistent exposition by various
decisions of this Court, the bar of Section 18 would not
apply and the courts would not be absolutely precluded
from granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons."
13. Very recently, the Honourable Supreme Court, while
adverting on the same issue, was pleased to deliver the judgment
in Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another, 2025 SCC
Online SC 1886 wherein, in paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2
following observations are made:-
"6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could be
read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case
where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the
Act is found to have not been made out and that the
accusations relating to the commission of such offence are
devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to
exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the
accused under Section 438 of the Code.
6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about the
commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation
where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first
blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very
reading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and the
allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard.
Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a
*12* apeal639a641o25.odt
prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be
permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary
realm or to consider other materials, nor the Court could
advert to conduct a mini trial."
14. At this stage, it is to be noted that the appellants in
Criminal Appeal No.639/2025 are arrested on 21.07.2025 and
since then, they are behind bars. The investigation in the crime is
already completed and as per the statement of the learned APP,
the charge-sheet is likely to be filed within 2-3 days. Except the
offences under the Atrocities Act, other offences are bailable.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
can be prima facie observed that there is no prima facie case
made out against the appellants and the custodial interrogation of
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.641/2025 is not warranted.
No purpose would be served by refusing bail to the appellants.
Therefore, the instant appeals deserve to be allowed by granting
bail to the appellants on certain conditions. Hence, the following
order:
ORDER
a) Both Criminal Appeal Nos.639/2025 and 641/2025
stand allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.08.2025 are
quashed and set aside.
*13* apeal639a641o25.odt
b) In connection with Crime bearing FIR No.212/2025
registered on 20.07.2025 with Shirur Kasar Police Station,
District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2),
352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No.639/2025 shall be released on
bail on their furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand Only] each with one solvent surety/ security in
the like amount.
c) In the event of arrest of the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.641/2025, in connection with Crime bearing FIR
No.212/2025 registered on 20.07.2025 with Shirur Kasar Police
Station, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections
115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, he shall be released on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/-
[Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only] with one solvent surety/
security in the like amount.
d) The appellants shall attend the concerned police
station as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing
of the charge-sheet.
*14* apeal639a641o25.odt
e) The appellants shall not try to contact or pressurize
the witnesses or the informant, in any manner whatsoever.
f) The appellants shall not enter village Tembhurni,
Taluka Shirur Kasar, District Beed, till filing of the charge sheet
and they shall give their residential address to the concerned
Investigating Officer.
16. However, it is made clear that the observations made
in this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose of
adjudication of these appeals.
kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )
