[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Baba Natha Takale And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 9 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:15275
(1) 908 cri apeal 44.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
908 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2026
1. BABA NATHA TAKALE
2. BAJRANG ASHOK URMUDE
3. BALU NIVRUTTI TAKALE
4. ASHOK PATILBA URMUDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
.....
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Andhale Sandip Ramnath
APP for Respondents/State : Mr. D.B. Bhange
Advocate for the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Girish Wani (Appointed)
.....
CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : 09.04.2026
P.C.:-
1. As per the office note the bailable warrant issued against the
respondent no.3 returned unexecuted as he was not found at the given
address.
2. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the
sides, I have gone through the record. By the present appeal under Section 14-
A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, the appellants/accused take exception to the order dated 06.01.2026
passed in Criminal Application No.2030/2025 by the learned Special Judge,
Ahilyanagar and thereby declined to release the appellants/accused on
(2) 908 cri apeal 44.26
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.313/2024 registered with
Taluka Police Station, Ahilyanagar on 29.03.2024 for the offence punishable
under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C., under
Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 37(1), 37(3) and 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
3. On perusal of FIR it appears that, on 28.03.2024 at about 4.00
am when the respondent no.3/informant was at his house at that time the
appellant nos.1 to 4 and their associates reached there and hurled castiest
slur. So also, the present appellant no.3/Balu Takale assaulted on his left leg
with sword due to which he suffered fracture and the present appellant
no.1/Baba Takale instigated not to leave him. So also, one of their associate
Mr. Kolhe tried to assault him on his head but he dodged the attack by his left
hand and sustained injuries on his palm. Thereafter, the present appellant
no.2/Bajrang assaulted him with stick. Thereafter, all the accused persons
damaged his motorcycle no.MH-12-DF-6284 and left the spot of the incident.
On the basis of said report Crime No.313/2024 was registered against the
present appellants/accused.
(3) 908 cri apeal 44.26
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants invited attention
of this Court to the kararnama / affidavit executed by the respondent
no.3/informant before the public notary, wherein, he stated that on
27.03.2024 his motorcycle got skidded due to which he sustained injuries to
his head and leg and he was hospitalized in Pandit Hospital, Ahmednagar on
29.03.2024 and he thought that the present appellant accused nos.1 to 4 and
their associates tried to kill him.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further
canvassed that the present appellants are falsely implicated in the crime and
no such assault with any deadly weapon like sword and stick has happened.
However, the respondent no.3/informant sustained the injuries in an accident
when his motorcycle got skidded. So also, the appellants have no criminal
antecedents and all the present appellants/accused will co-operate with the
investigative agency.
6. Per contra, Mr. Bhange the learned APP canvassed that though
the appellants/accused were having knowledge that the informant/
respondent no.3 belongs to scheduled tribe still they hurled castiest slur and
assaulted with sword and stick with an intention to kill him. The crime is of
serious nature. The appellants/accused abused on caste to the respondent
no.3 in public view. As per the injury certificate, the respondent
(4) 908 cri apeal 44.26
no.3/informant sustained injury with hard and blunt object and said injury is
of grievous nature. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the present
appellants/accused is necessary to recover the weapon and to ascertain the
motive to assault the respondent no.3/informant. Hence, prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
7. Advocate Mr. Girish Wani the learned counsel appointed through
the legal aid for the respondent no.3 supported the contention of the learned
APP.
8. Needless to say that, as per the contents of the FIR on 28.03.2024
at about 4.00 am the present appellants/accused and their associates visited
the premises of informant and asked how a 'Pardhi' community person can
reside there and allegedly assaulted him. The present appellant/accused no.3-
Balu Takale assaulted with sword on his left leg on knee and another accused
no.1/Baba Takale instigated not to leave him. Therefore, another accused Mr.
Kolhe tried to assault the informant with sword but he dodged the attack and
sustained injury on his left palm. Another accused no.2/Bajrang assaulted the
informant/respondent no.3 with stick and damaged his motorcycle. However,
the FIR does not reflect that the said incident has occurred within the public
view.
(5) 908 cri apeal 44.26
9. In the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. V/s. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Ors.; 2018 7 SCC 731, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
10. In Sibbia (supra), this Court has briefly dealt with the question of
duration of anticipatory bail. It seems to us that the discussion primarily
pertained to grant of anticipatory bail at the pre-FIR stage (see paragraph 43
quoted below). It appears that there are indications in Sibbia (supra) that
anticipatory bail may be for a limited period. To quote paragraphs 19, 40, 42
and 43:-
"19. ... While granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate
conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure
an uninterrupted investigation. One of such conditions can even be
that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely
discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person
released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for
facilitating the discovery. Besides, if and when the occasion arises,
it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts
made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released
on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of
U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya to the effect that when a person not in
custody approaches a police officer investigating an offence and
offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact,
having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him,
he may appropriately be deemed so have surrendered himself to
the police. The broad foundation of this rule is stated to be
that Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not
contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken
in custody: submission to the custody by word or action by a
person is sufficient. For similar reasons, we are unable to agree
that anticipatory bail should be refused if a legitimate case for the
remand of the offender to the police custody under Section
167(2) of the Code is made out by the investigating agency.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
40. We have said that there is one proposition formulated by the
High Court with which we are inclined to agree. That is
proposition (2). We agree that a 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail
should not generally be passed. This flows from the very language
of the section which, as discussed above, requires the applicant to
show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested. A
belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if
there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be
said that the applicant's apprehension that he may be arrested is
(6) 908 cri apeal 44.26
genuine. That is why, normally, a direction should not issue under
Section 438(1) to the effect that the applicant shall be released on
bail "whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever". That
is what is meant by a 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail, an order
which serves as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind
of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely or
unlikely regarding which, no concrete information can possibly be
had. The rationale of a direction under Section 438(1) is the belief
of the applicant founded on reasonable grounds that he may be
arrested for a non-bailable offence. It is unrealistic to expect the
applicant to draw up his application with the meticulousness of a
pleading in a civil case and such is not requirement of the section.
But specific events and facts must be disclosed by the applicant in
order to enable the court to judge of the reasonableness of his
belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the exercise of
power conferred by the section.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
42. There was some discussion before us on certain minor
modalities regarding the passing of bail orders under Section
438(1). Can an order of bail be passed under the section without
notice to the Public Prosecutor? It can be. But notice should issue
to the Public Prosecutor or the Government Advocate forthwith
and the question of bail should be re-examined in the light of the
respective contentions of the parties. The ad interim order too
must conform to the requirements of the section and suitable
conditions should be imposed on the applicant even at that stage.
Should the operation of an order passed under Section 438(1) be
limited in point of time? Not necessarily. The court may, if there
are reasons for doing so, limit the operation of the order to a short
period until after the filing of an FIR in respect of the matter
covered by the order. The applicant may in such cases be directed
to obtain an order of bail under Section 437 or 439 of the Code
within a reasonably short period after the filing of the FIR as
aforesaid. But this need not be followed as an invariable rule. The
normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in
relation to a period of time.
43. During the last couple of years this Court, while dealing
with appeals against orders passed by various High Courts, has
granted anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing conditions
set out in Section 438(2) (i), (ii) and (iii). The court has, in
addition, directed in most of those cases that (a) the applicant
should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a
discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or
that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a
discovery is to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the court
(7) 908 cri apeal 44.26
has, in view of the material placed before it, directed that the order
of anticipatory bail will remain in operation only for a week or so
until after the filing of the FIR in respect of matters covered by the
order. These orders, on the whole, have worked satisfactorily,
causing the least inconvenience to the individuals concerned and
least interference with the investigational rights of the police. The
court has attempted through those orders to strike a balance
between the individual's right to personal freedom and the
investigational rights of the police. The appellants who were
refused anticipatory bail by various courts have long since been
released by this Court under Section 438(1) of the Code."
10. Therefore, to my mind, considering the law laid down in the cases
of Karuppudayar V/s. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police and Ors.; AIR 2025 SC 705 and Kiran V/s. Rajkumar J. Jain; AIR 2025
SC 4083, no bar is created to enlarge the appellants/accused on anticipatory
bail in connection with Crime No.313/2025 by imposing stringent conditions.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER:
i) The impugned order date 16.01.2026 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal B.A. No.2030/2025 is hereby quashed and set
aside.
ii) In the event of arrest, the appellant no.1- Baba Natha Takale, appellant
No.2-Bajrang Ashok Urmude, appellant no.3- Balu Nivrutti Takale and
appellant no.4- Ashok Patilba Umrude be released on anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No. 313 of 2024 registered with Taluka Police Station,
District Ahilyanagar for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
149, 307, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C., under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and
under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes
(8) 908 cri apeal 44.26
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section
37(1), 37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act on furnishing P. R. bond
of Rs.25,000/- each and one surety in the like amount.
iii) The appellants shall attend the concerned Police Station on 13.04.2026
at about 11.00 am and thereafter shall attend the concerned Police Station on
every Monday between 10.00 am to 12.00 pm till completion of the
investigation.
iv) For recovery of weapon like sword the Investigating Officer shall
interrogate the accused and the custody of the present appellants would be
presumed under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
v) The appellants shall furnish details of residential address and other
contact details such as the mobile number etc., to the concerned police
station. If there is any change in the contact details, the same shall be
immediately informed to the concerned police station.
vi) The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the competent Court
without prior permission, until further orders.
vii) The appellants shall not contact and/or influence the witness/es and/or
tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.
viii) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
ix) The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per rules and be paid
through the High Court Legal Services Authority.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]
mubashir
