[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Yogita Vinod Patil And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:6277
Cri**-Apeal-953-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 953 OF 2025
1. Yogitabai W/o Vinod Patil
Age: 40 years, Occ. Labour
2. Vinod S/o Bhagwat Patil,
Age: 45 years, Occ. Agriculturist
3. Bhushan S/o Vinod Patil,
Age: 21 years, Occ. Education
4. Yogesh S/o Vinod Patil
Age: 18 years, Occ. Education,
All R/o. Manjardi, Tal. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon ... APPELLANTS
(Accused Nos. 1 to 4)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Amalner Police Station, Amalner,
Dist. Jalna
2. The Supt. Of Police,
Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon
3. Smt. Sarlabai W/o Namdeo Bagul
Age: 40 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Manjardi, Tal. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon ... RESPONDENTS
(R-3 is informant)
....
Mr. B. R. Warma, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. V. M. Chate, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. S. T. Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent No.3
....
1 of 16
(( 2 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
RESERVED ON : February 04, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : February 12, 2026
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Heard Mr. Warma, the learned counsel for the appellants,
Mr. Chate, the learned APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.
Mahajan, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 / informant.
2. By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, the appellants/accused takes exception to the order dated
10.12.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Amalner. By the
impugned order, the learned Special Judge, Amalner declined to
enlarge the appellants/accused on anticipatory bail in connection
with Crime No.494 of 2025, registered with Amalner Police Station,
District Jalgaon, on 25.11.2025, for the offence punishable under
Sections 309(4), 115(2), 296, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
2 of 16
(( 3 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
3. Having regard to submissions canvassed on behalf of the
respective parties, I have gone through the record. It is a matter of
record that, on 25.11.2025, respondent No.3 / informant lodged an
oral report alleging that, she is residing with her husband and son.
She is doing labour work. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accused
No.1 Yogitabai w/o Vinod Patil, 2 Vinod Bhagwat Patil, 3 Bhushan
Vinod Patil and Yogesh Vinod Patil, are residing in front of her house.
The appellant No.1 / accused No.1 is the member of Grampanchayat.
All the accused are well aware that she belongs to Scheduled Caste
community. On 12.11.2025 at about 5.00 p.m., she was shouting her
son Raj Bagul on account of leakage of water tap and she told her son
as to why he did not notice leakage of water tap. At that time, the
accused No.1 Yogita Patil, her husband accused No.2 Vinod Patil and
both of their sons who were fetching water from said tap and accused
No.1 doubted that, the informant taunting her, therefore, all the
accused persons abused her in filthy language. Accused No.2 Vinod
abused her on her caste by saying that, "pkaHkkjhu jkaM rqyk tkLr >kys
vkgs". Thereafter, all the accused persons rushed to her person and
assaulted her with fist and blows. When her husband and son rushed
3 of 16
(( 4 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
to save her, all the accused persons abused the informant, her
husband and son.
4. The Informant/Respondent no. 3 alleged that, all the
accused persons were asking her informant and her family members
that "Cobbler, vacate the house and leave it ( pkaHkV~;k gs ?kj [kkyh dj)"
and issued threat. At that time, the other persons from the said lane
i.e. Vivek Sudam Gosavi, Ganesh Khandu Shevale, intervened and
separated the appellants and the victim / informant. Her husband
Namdev Bagul sustained invisible injuries to his leg, therefore, he was
hospitalized. On the basis of said oral report, Crime No.494 of 2025
registered with Amalner Police Station on 25.11.2025, for the offence
punishable under Sections 309(4), 115(2), 296, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
canvassed that, the alleged incident was occurred on 12.11.2025,
however, the F.I.R. No.0294 of 2025 registered on 25.11.2025 i.e.
after lapse of 13 days period and no explanation has been given about
4 of 16
(( 5 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
lodging the delayed report in the F.I.R. Therefore, the Respondent no.
3 lodged the false report after thought and on the basis of said report
false FIR registered against the appellant accused and all the
appellants/accused are falsely implicated in the crime. Therefore, the
appellants have made out prima-facie case to release them on
anticipatory bail during pendency of trial in the said crime.
6. It is further canvassed that, the appellant No.1 lodged a
report on 12.11.2025 against respondent No.3 in respect of incident
occurred on 12.11.2025 at about 5.00 p.m. about abusement in filthy
language and issuing life threat, however, the Police Authorities
registered N.C. Report No.1176 of 2025 against respondent No.3 for
the offence under Section 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S. 2023. However,
the Police Authorities registered Crime No. 494 of 2025 against the
present appellants on the basis false report lodged by the respondent
No.3 on 25.11.2025 after 13 days. The FIR nothing but the counter
N.C. report lodged by the appellant No.1/ accused.
7. It is further canvassed that, appellant No.1 is a sitting
member of the village panchayat, appellant No.2 is an agriculturist,
and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are College-going students. The alleged
5 of 16
(( 6 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
incident narrated in the F.I.R. never occurred. The informant /
Respondent No. 3 and the appellants/accused reside opposite each
other in the same locality. For the past several years, the relations
between the family members of the appellants and Respondent No. 3
have been cordial, and no controversy has arisen. However, on the
day of incident Respondent No.3 abused and threatened Appellant
No.1 by cursing her failure as a member of the village panchayat.
Therefore, considering the entire scenario, it does not demonstrate
about occurrence of such incident and mere allegations of robbery is
not sufficient for committal of the crime. However, on 12.12.2025,
the learned Special Judge, Amalner, passed the impugned and
rejected the application for pre-arrest bail without considering
material available on record. Therefore, prayed to quash and set aside
the impugned order and prayed for releasing the appellants on
anticipatory bail.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants further canvassed
that, there are no allegations of atrocities as against appellant Nos. 3
and 4, who are college going students and the appellant Nos. 1 and 2
are falsely implicated, because on 12.11.2025, the appellant No.1
lodged N.C. report by against respondent No.3.
6 of 16
(( 7 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
9. The learned counsel for the appellants further canvassed
that on 16.12.2025, this Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail
and released the appellants/accused on execution of P.B. and S.B.
with a rider that the appellants shall cooperate with the investigating
Officer. Accordingly, the appellants have furnished bail bond and
cooperated with the Investigating Officer. After the investigation is
over, the charge-sheet has been filed on19.01.2026, which came to be
registered as Special Case No.8 of 2026. Therefore, custody of the
appellants/accused is not required and no bar is created u/s 18 of SC
ST Atrocities to enlarge the appellants/accused on bail under Section
438 of Cr.P.C..
10. To buttress these submissions, the learned counsel for the
appellants placed reliance on the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of
Kerala and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the following issues:-
"a. Whether Section 18 of the Act, 1989 imposes an absolute
bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered
under the said Act?
b. When can it be said that a prima facie case is made out in
a given FIR / complaint?
7 of 16
(( 8 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
c. Whether the averments in the FIR/complaint in question
disclose commission of any offence under Section 3(1)(r)
of the Act, 1989?
d. Whether any offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the Act,
1989 could be said to have been prima faice made out in
the FIR/complaint in question?
e. Whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the
complainant is sufficient to attract the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989?"
11. While answering the above issues (a to e), the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is
not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member
of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to
humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such
community. In other words, it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that
every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who
is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person
who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed
against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989
is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation
is that the person who is subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe.
8 of 16
(( 9 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that for
constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the Act 1989, it is
necessary that :-
a. Accused should not be a member of the Schedule Caste or
Scheduled Tribe;
b. Accused should by words, either written or spoken, or by
signs or by visible representation or otherwise;
c. Promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatred
or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Caste or the
Scheduled Tribes.
13. In view of above, it appears that the Court required to
undertake an exercise to find out whether there was a substance in
the allegations in the F,I.R. about making out the prima facie case.
14. Per contra, the learned APP and the learned counsel for
respondent No.3, supported the findings recorded by the learned
Special Judge while passing the impugned order in Criminal Bail
Application No.310 of 2025. The learned AP canvassed that, as per
the contents of F.I.R., the appellants / accused and respondent No.3 /
informant are residing in front of each other in the same lane of
village Manjardi, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon. The incident
9 of 16
(( 10 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
occurred on 12.11.2025 at 5.00 p.m. at the public tap when the
informant / respondent No.3 and the accused were fetching water.
Appellant No.2 alleged to have abused the informant by uttering the
words "pkaHkkjhu jkaM rqyk tkLr >kys vkgs" and assaulted her with fist
and blows. When the husband the and son of the Respondent no.3
rushed to save her at that time, all the accused persons abused on
their caste. Therefore, said incident occurred at the public place and
within the public view. Further, the witnesses i.e. Vivek Sudam
Gosavi, Ganesh Khandu Shevale, intervened and separated the
appellants / accused and the informant. Therefore, intention of all
the appellants / accused suggests to humiliate the member of
Scheduled Caste community at the public place in the public view and
prima facie committed an offence u/s 3 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act,
1989. Therefore, the appellants/accused are not entitled for
anticipatory bail.
15. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 canvassed that,
the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet in respect of the
offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989, however,
but Section 18 of the Act, creates a bar under Section 482 of the
B.N.S.S. (old 438 of Cr.P.C.) to enlarge the appellant/accused on
10 of 16
(( 11 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
anticipatory bail. Further, merely the I. O. filed charge sheet against
the appellant it does not lift the bar u/s 18 of the Act. Therefore, the
appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
16. In support of these submissions the learned counsel for
respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the case of Kiran Vs.
Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Ors, AIR 2025 SC 4083, wherein, in
paragraph No.6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-
"6. In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of
Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various
decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised
that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the
applicability of Section 438, Cr.PC, it creates a bar against grant
of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest
of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed
the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken
off.
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
11 of 16
(( 12 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
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 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."
17. In the case in hand, it prima facie appears that on
12.11.2025, at about 5:00 p.m., accused No. 2 abused the
informant/respondent No. 3 by making remarks on her caste and
character by saying that,"pkaHkkjhu jkaM rqyk tkLr >kys vkgs ". All the
accused persons abused the informant/Respondent No. 3 and her
family members by saying that " Cobbler, vacate the house and leave it
(pkaHkV~;k gs ?kj [kkyh dj)" and issued threat. The
informant/respondent No. 3 is a member of the Scheduled Caste
community and this fact is well within the knowledge of the accused
persons. The Accused are not members of of SC ST Community. The
incident of abusement in caste occurred at a public place and within
public view, with an intention to humiliate respondent No. 3.
Therefore, in my considered view, the offence under Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, prima facie attracts.
12 of 16
(( 13 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
18. In the case of Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. By The Deputy
Superintendent of Police & Ors, 2025(2) CGLJ 316, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that if the offence under the Atrocities Act
occurred within the four-corner of the house, it do not prima facie
constitute an offence either under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
19. In the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar cited (supra), it has
been held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act 1989, exclude the
applicability of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., it creates a bar against grant of
anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relation to arrest of a person
who faces specific accusation having committed the offence under the
SC/ST Atrocities Act within the public view.
20. On perusal of the charge-sheet as well as the F.I.R. dated
25.11.2025, it appears that, the incident of uttering in casteist
language as well as on the character of respondent No.3 / informant
at the public place within the public view by saying " pkaHkkjhu jkaM rqyk
tkLr >kys vkgs". Therefore, intention of the accused No.2 appears
about insulting the respondent No.3 in the public view, attracts the
provisions of Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va).
13 of 16
(( 14 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
21. After going through the spot panchanama it appears that
the incident was occurred at the public tap in front of the house of
respondent No.3/informant. No doubt, on 05.01.2026, the
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Shri Namdev Bagul,
the husband of respondent No.3, wherein he stated about abusement
by accused Nos. 1 and 2. However, there is no statement that the
appellant/accused Nos. 3 and 4 abused the informant on her caste.
The statements of other witnesses are supporting story of the
informant. As statement of witness Ananda Devram Wadar, on
13.11.2025, he repaired the public tap and water leakage stopped.
The witness Sonu Azad Bhill stated that, on 12.11.2025, the
informant/respondent No.3 was abusing the appellant No.1 in filthy
language and the appellant No.2 was giving understanding to the
informant, but her husband abused him in filthy language. Therefore,
it appears about occurrence of incident in the public view. However,
there is no allegations about abusement on castiest language to the
respondent No.3 / informant at the hands of appellant Nos. 3 and 4.
Therefore, I am on the view that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are not
entitled for anticipatory bail in Crime No.494 of 2025. However, no
prima facie offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the
14 of 16
(( 15 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
established as against appellant Nos. 3 and 4.
22. On 10.12.2025, the learned Special Court passed the
impugned order and declined to grant anticipatory bail to the
appellants. Needless to say that, the offence under the Atrocities Act
prima facie appears to establish as against appellant Nos. 1 and 2, but
it does not establish against appellant Nos. 3 and 4. Therefore, the
impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside to the extent of
appellant Nos. 3 and 4.
23. On 16.12.2025, this Court passed the order and enlarged
the accused Nos. 1 to 4 on anticipatory bail. Since, offence under the
Atrocities Act prima facie appears to establish as against appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, but it does not establish against appellant Nos. 3 and 4,
therefore, interim order granted by this Court to the extent of
appellant Nos. 1 and 2 needs to be recalled. However, the said
interim order can be extended to the extent of appellant Nos. 3 and 4.
24. In view of above discussion, I proceed to pass the
following order:-
15 of 16
(( 16 )) Cri**-Apeal-953-2025
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The appeal in respect of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby
dismissed. Both the appellants shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from
today.
(iii) The appeal in respect of appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are
hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 10.12.2025,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special
Court, below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.310 of
2025 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of
appellant Nos. 3 and 4.
(iv) Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are already released on ad-interim
anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.12.2025 on
execution of P.B. and S.B. of Rs.25,000/- each. Therefore,
the said interim protection is hereby extended during
pendency of the trial on the same terms and conditions.
(v) Since, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet
against the appellants / accused, therefore, there is no
need to attend the concerned Police Station by
respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
(vi) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
SMS
16 of 16
