Bombay High Court
Vsntrav Shahadevrao Pawar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 26 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26559
1 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
51 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.560 OF 2025
1. Vsntrav Shahadevrao Pawar,
Age : 56 years, Occupation: Agri.
2. Bhisma Vasantrao Pawar,
Age : 28 years, Occupation: Education,
3. Raju Gangadhar Nirmal,
Age : 58 years, Occupation: Nirmal,
4. Pravin Gorakhnath Hingale,
Age: 31 yrs., Occu.: Agri,
5. Ganesh Vitthal Hingale,
Age: 52 yrs., Occu.: Agri,
6. Ganesh Pandurang Nirmal,
Age: 37 yrs., Occu.: Agri,
7. Amol Digambar Hingale,
Age: 34 yrs., Occu.: Agri,
8. Shubham Govind Nirmal,
Age: 23 yrs., Occu.: Education,
9. Avdhut Ganesh Nirmal,
Age: 26 yrs., Occu.: Service,
All R/o At Limbgoan, Post. Thergaon,
Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. ... Appellants
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Investigation Officer
Crime No.0259/2025, Pachod Police
Station, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad (Rural)
2. Nitesh Damodhar Londhe,
Age: 27 yrs., Occu.: Agri,
R/o. At Limbgoan, Post. Thergaon,
Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. ... Respondents
2 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-J
...
Mr. Sandeep B. Rajebhosale, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Bhagwan K. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (through
V.C.).
...
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 26th SEPTEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1. The Appellants are praying for quashing and setting aside the
order passed by learned Special Judge, (Under SC&ST Act), Paithan,
Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad in Criminal Bail Application
No.102 of 2025 and further praying for release them on anticipatory
bail. The said order came to be passed in Crime No.259 of 2025,
registered on 9th July 2025 at Pachod Police station, Taluka Paithan,
District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2),
191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Crime
No.259 of 2025 is registered on the basis of report lodged by Nitesh
Damodhar Londhe (Respondent No.2) on 9th July 2025 at 20:59 hours.
2. As per the oral report, Respondent No.2 stated that on 9 th
July 2025 at 11:30 a.m., he along with his nephew-Aniket Raju Londhe
were going towards Pathardi for refilling the petrol. At that time, all
3 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-J
nine Accused persons (Appellants) came to him and started abusing on
the basis of their caste. They also alleged to have assaulted by fist and
kick blows and threatened to kill them. In the meantime, his nephew-
Aniket Londhe came there. However, he was also beaten and they
snatched Rs.50,000/- from his pocket and, therefore, he lodged the
report with the Pachod Police Station.
3. Learned Advocate for the Appellants submitted that after
registration of the aforesaid Crime No.259 of 2025, on next date i.e. on
10th July 2025, offence punishable under Sections 310(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came to be added. He further
submitted that prior to Registration of Crime No.259 of 2025, two
earlier crimes came to be registered i.e. FIR No.257 of 2025 at 19:12
hours and Crime No.258 of 2025 at 20:01 hours. In the FIR No.257 of
2025, it is alleged that on 9th July 2025 at 12:00 noon, Respondent
No.2-Informant along with his Co-accused have physically assaulted
the complainant and snatched Rs.5,000/- from him. In the said FIR, it
is specifically stated that Respondent No.2 had threatened the
complainant therein of filing the atrocity case against them. Another
Crime No.258 of 2025 is lodged by Jitesh Ganesh Vavhal, who reported
that on 9th July 2025 at 11:30, when he was having tea in front of
grocery shop of village, the Accused persons therein including one-
Pravin Gorakhnath Hingale have abused him by referring to his caste
4 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-J
and, therefore, offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 352,
351(3) of the BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the
SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are registered against
Accused persons. Thereafter to counter blast the said FIR, again third
FIR bearing Crime No.259 of 2025, at the instance of Respondent No.2
came to be filed with colourful and concocted story just to increase the
gravity of the offence. According to Mr. Rajebhosale, learned Advocate
for the Appellants, deliberately false case has been registered against
them, which would be evident from the fact that Crime No.258 of
2025, it is shown that the said incident took place at grocery shop of
village and Accused therein namely, Pravin Gorakhnath Hingale has
participated in crime. However, the said Pravin Ingle has been shown
present on the spot in both the crime at the same time. Another fact
that in Crime No.258 of 2025, it is stated that Accused-Machindra
Pandurang Ingle was present, but the said Machindra Ingle is already
expired on 1st July 2016 and his death certificate is also relied upon
him. Another fact which falsifies the case of the Informant-Respondent
No.2 that it is stated in the FIR that he was going to petrol pump
located at Limbgaon, Shivaar. However, according to learned Advocate
for the Appellants, there is no such petrol pump in the vicinity of
Limbgaon, Shivaar. In addition to these submissions, learned Advocate
for the Appellants would also submit that the allegations levelled
against the Appellants are of general in nature. In chorus, Appellants
5 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-J
have been alleged to have abused to the Informant-Respondent No.2.
No specific role of Accused has been stated in the report. Therefore,
according to him, no prima-facie case is made out against Accused
persons and, therefore, they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the application
and stated that the Appellants are involved in serious crime against the
member of Schedule Caste. The investigation in the instant prime is
going on. Since the Appellants are involved in serious crime, therefore,
there custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore, he prayed for
rejection of instant appeal.
5. I also heard learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, who
vehemently opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the
Appellants. According to him, the Appellants are influential persons of
the village. They have committed serious offences against the persons
belonging to the alleged act of the Appellants, there is fear in the mind
of the members of Schedule Caste persons. If Appellants are granted
anticipatory bail, they may threaten the witnesses. As such granting
anticipatory bail would create adverse impact on the minds of persons
belonging to Schedule Caste. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the
anticipatory bail.
6. On the basis of submissions made by learned Advocates for
the respective parties and after going through the papers, it is pertinent
6 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-J
to mention here that there are three FIRs filed out of same incident and
Crime No.259 of 2025 is filed in an attempt to counter blast previous
crimes. The bare perusal of all the FIRs would reveal that out of the
same incident, three reports have been filed deliberately to falsely
implicate the Accused persons. The presence of same Accused is shown
at two different locations. The registration of crime against the
Accused, who is dead in the year 2016 is also very surprising and as
such, therefore, it can be safely concluded that no prima-facie case is
made out against Accused-Appellants.
7. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court
right from the judgment of Pruthvi Raj Chauhand Vs. Union of India ,
reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala & Anr ,
reported in 2024 LJSoft (SC) 758, it is for the Court to verify the
contents of the FIR and thereafter to arrive at a conclusion as to
whether a prima-facie case against the Appellants-Accused is made out
or not. Once it is found that no prima-facie case is made out, the bar
under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted.
8. In that view of the matter, since I find that since no prima-
facie case is made out against the Appellants, therefore, following
order is passed:-
A] Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22 nd July
2025 passed by learned Special Judge, (Under SC&ST
7 of 7 51-APEAL.560.2025-J
Act), Paithan, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad is
quashed and set aside.
B] In the event the Appellants are arrested in connection
with Crime No.259 of 2025, registered on 9 th July 2025
at Pachod Police station, Taluka Paithan, District
Aurangabad, they shall be released on bail on furnishing
PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties each in
the like amount.
C] The Appellants shall remain present before the
investigating officer as and when required by the
investigating officer.
D] The Appellants shall co-operate with the investigation.
E] The Appellants shall not influence or threaten the
informant, witnesses or any person concerned with the
case and they shall not tamper with the evidence.
9. Appeal stands disposed of in view of above order.
(SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)
Tauseef
