[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sunny Ramkisan Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 23 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:7848
(1) cri apeal 508.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2025
Sunny Ramkisan Shinde
Age: 26 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Pandit Nagar, Nagar Road,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .... APPELLANT
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Officer in Charge
Police Station Beed (Rural),
Dist. Beed.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Beed, Dist. Beed.
3. Avinash Anurath Sable
Age: 35 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Palwan, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .... RESPONDENTS
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 697 OF 2025
Akshay s/o Rangnath Sakhre,
Age: 31 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Chaus Colony, Balepeer,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .... APPELLANT
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Dy. Superintendent of Police,
Sub-Division, Beed, Dist. Beed.
2. Avinash Anurath Sable
Age: 35 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Palwan, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .... RESPONDENTS
(2) cri apeal 508.25
.....
Advocate for the Appellant in Appeal/508/25 : Mr. Sudarshan Salunke
Advocate for the Appellant in Appeal/697/25 : Mr. A.R. Hange
APP for Respondent/State : S/Shri P.M. Kulkarni & Mr. R.D. Raut
Advocate for the Resp. No.3 in Appeal/508/25 : Ms. Sunita Sonawane
Advocate for the Resp. No.2 in Appeal/697/25 : Mr. Rakesh Brahmankar
(Appointed through Legal Aid)
.....
CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.02.2026
ORDER :
-
1. In Appeal No.508/2025, the appellant/accused takes exception
to the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Beed in Criminal Bail Application No.594/2025 arising out of Crime
No.153/2025 registered with Beed Rural Police Station.
2. In Appeal No.697/2025, the appellant/accused takes exception
to the order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Beed in Criminal Bail Application No.710/2025 arising out of Crime
No.153/2025 registered with Beed Rural Police Station.
3. In both these appeals, the appellants/accused have prayed for
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.153/2025 registered with
one and the same police station, therefore, both these appeals are being
heard together.
(3) cri apeal 508.25
4. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both
the sides, I have gone through the record. On the face of record, the
respondent/informant lodged an oral report on 29.05.2025 alleging that,
on 26.05.2025 at about 9.30 pm to 10 pm., when he was closing his hotel
at that time the accused- Akshay Rangnath Sakhare (the appellant in
criminal appeal no.697/2025), Sunny Ramkisan Shinde (the appellant in
criminal appeal no.508/2025) and their associates namely Sandip @
Gajanan Balasaheb Dahiphale and Satish Rakte visited at his hotel and all
of them were taking meals. The appellants/accused and other co-accused
demanded Bisleri water bottle from the informant which he provided. After
the meal all of them visited at the counter of the hotel and on seeing
portrait of Shivaji Maharaj, the accused hurled abuses on his caste by
saying that, he is not worthy for putting the portrait of Shivaji Maharaj and
he is not worthy to run the hotel. Thereafter, the appellants and other
accused persons assaulted him with fists and blows. So also, they beat his
brother with wooden log and uttered the words ' egkjk rq>h gkWVsy pkyokph
lq/nk yk;dh ukgh '. Thereafter, his cousin brother intervened in the quarrel
and pacified them. As the Respondent/informant and his brother sustained
injuries they were hospitalized at Government Hospital, Beed. On the basis
of said report, Crime No.153/2025 was registered with Beed Rural Police
Station for the offence punishable under Section 118(2), 115(2), 352,
(4) cri apeal 508.25
351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 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.
5. The appellant/accused in appeal no.508/2025 filed Criminal
Bail Application No.594/2025 and prayed for anticipatory bail. On
30.06.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1/Special Court passed
the impugned order and declined to grant anticipatory bail to him. In
Criminal Appeal No.697/2025, the appellant/accused filed Criminal Bail
Application No.710/2025 seeking anticipatory bail, however, on
02.08.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Beed passed the
impugned order and rejected the application for anticipatory bail.
Therefore, both these appeals are filed seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No.153/2025 registered with Beed Rural Police
Station.
6. The learned counsels appearing for the appellants/accused in
both these appeals vehemently canvassed that, as per the contents of FIR,
the present appellants/accused abused the respondent/informant on his
caste in chorus, however, abusement on caste in chorus is not possible at
the hands of all the accused including the present appellants. Further, the
Respondent/informant has not specifically named any particular accused
(5) cri apeal 508.25
hurling abuse on his caste. It is further contended that, the
appellants/accused have not hurled castiest slur with an intention to cause
damage to the reputation of the respondent/informant.
7. It is further canvassed that, as per the contents of the FIR, the
appellants/accused allegedly visited the hotel of respondent/informant at
about 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm and after the meal they allegedly abused the
respondent/informant on his caste. However, contents of the FIR does not
depict that the accused persons abused the respondent/informant on caste
in public view. Further, the co-accused Sandip @ Gajanan Balasaheb
Dahiphale was arrested and he was released on bail. The Investigating
Officer visited the spot of incident and drawn Spot Panchnama and seized
crime weapon wooden log. Therefore, custody of the present appellants is
not required for any interrogation purpose, hence, prayed for anticipatory
bail.
8. It is further canvassed that, the informant/respondent has not
specifically stated as to which of the accused hurled abuses on his caste,
however, the allegation is about abusement on caste by the
appellants/accused and co-accused in chorus which is highly impossible. In
support of these submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/accused placed reliance on the judgment dated 29.11.2024
(6) cri apeal 508.25
passed in Criminal Appeal No.566/2021 (Vishal s/o Badrinath Wadekar
V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) at Nagpur Bench of this Court, wherein it
has been held that, to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3(1)
(u) of the Atrocities Act will come into play only when any person is trying
to promote ill-will or enmity or hatred against members of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and there was delay of five months in
lodging the report.
9. It further relied on the case of Vijaymala w/o Tanaji Dolare &
Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.; 2020 ALL MR (Cri) 1835,
wherein, this Court considered cases of Shashikant Ramhari Tambe & Ors.
V/s. State of Maharashtra; 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 1232; Mukesh Kumar Saini
V/s. State (Delhi Administration); 2002 ALL MR (Cri.) Journal 41 and
Sugriv Prakash Garde & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
decided on 09.06.2026 in Criminal Application No.2848/2016, wherein it
has been observed that, there must be specific accusations against each of
the accused and Section 34 of IPC cannot be pressed into service. Omnibus
statement that all the accused persons uttered allegedly humiliating word
may not be enough. Therefore, considering the observation made in the
case of Shashikant Ramhari Tambe cited (supra), this Court held that,
(7) cri apeal 508.25
definitely it is not possible to hurl abuses in chorus and they can be given
benefit of the decision in Shashikant Tambe's, supra.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused
further relied on Balkrushna Uttamrao Mule V/s. State of Maharashta; AIR
OnLine 2022 Bom. 742, wherein the Division Bench of this Court observed
as under :
"13. Thus, on carefully examining the FIR discussed above,
prima facie it is seen that in spite of some occurrence taking place on
24-07-2019, there was no prompt reporting of the same for the
reasons best known to the informant. Even occurrence which
allegedly took place on 26-07-2019 is reported on the next date i.e.
on 27-07-2019. It is also emerging that threats and utterance on caste
abuse are apparently attributed to all the three applicants at one and
the same time. It is difficult to comprehend as to how three persons
in one go, at one and the same time, could in-chorus use identical
words for abusing the informant on caste basis. Secondly, statements
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of various villagers also show
that there was no alleged occurrence between informant and
applicants accused at all. FIR is also silent about the said occurrence
to be taking place in presence of anybody else. All such factors,
coupled with existing civil dispute, go to show that there is
substance in the submission made by learned Advocate for
applicants herein that FIR is motivated one."
11. The prosecution has filed Reply/Affidavit of Ms. Pooja Vitthal
Pawar, SDPO, Beed. According to the Investigating Officer, the present
(8) cri apeal 508.25
appellants/accused along with other co-accused visited the hotel of
respondent/informant for taking meal and demanded water bottle. After
the meal, the present appellants/accused and co-accused visited at the
counter of hotel for payment of bill but on seeing the portrait of Shivaji
Maharaj at the counter they abused the informant on his caste by saying
that, he is not worthy for putting portrait of Shivaji Maharaj and he is not
worthy to run the hotel. Thereafter, the appellants and the other co-
accused assaulted the respondent/informant with fists and blows and also
beat the informant and his brother with wooden log. Therefore, custodial
interrogation of the appellants/accused is necessary for seizure of crime
weapon wooden-log and if the appellants/accused are released on
anticipatory bail, there is every possibility of them tampering the evidence
and witnesses, hence, prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.
12. It is further canvassed on behalf of the respondent that, the
incident has occurred on 26.05.2025 at about 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm in the
hotel of respondent/informant. The Hotel is a public place and they abused
respondent/informant on caste within the public view and also assaulted
with wooden log and on the same day, the respondent/informant and his
injured brother were hospitalized in Government Hospital. Since the
abusement on caste has occurred within the public view, therefore, under
(9) cri apeal 508.25
Section 18 of the SC-ST Act, a bar is created to enlarge the
appellants/accused on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
13. It is further canvassed that the incident has occurred on
26.05.2025 at about 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm and on the same day, the
respondent/informant and his brother were hospitalised. On next day, the
respondent/informant were discharged. Thereafter, he visited Beed Rural
Police Station to lodge the FIR on 27.05.2025, however, no FIR was
registered. Therefore, on 29.05.2025, the respondent/informant visited
the office of the Superintendent of Police, Beed and lodged the report for
the incident occurred on 26.05.2025. Therefore, the respondent/informant
explained the delay caused while lodging the FIR, hence, prayed for
dismissal of both these appeals.
14. The appellants/accused have produced the copy of remand in
respect of accused- Sandip @ Gajanan Balasaheb Dahiphale, who was
arrested on 30.05.2025 at about 19.19 hours. The said accused was
produced before the Magistrate and he was remanded in MCR. It is not
disputed by the respondent that the accused Sandip @ Gajanan Balasaheb
Dahiphale was released on regular bail in Crime No. 153 of 2025.
( 10 ) cri apeal 508.25
15. On perusal of remand papers it appears that, the Investigating
Officer visited at the spot of the incident and had drawn spot panchanama.
So also, he seized the wooden log from the spot. The respondent/
informant or his brother has not disclosed in the FIR about use of more
than one wooden log by the accused persons. Therefore, as on today
nothing has remained to be seized from the appellants/accused.
16. In the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.; 2025 SCC
Online SC 1886, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the following
cases:
(i) Vilas Pandurang Pawar-V-State of Maharashtra,(2012) 8 SCC 795;
(ii) Prathvi Raj Chavan-Vs- Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727,
(iii) Shajan Skaria-Vs- State of Kerla, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249,
(iv) State of M.P. Ram Krishna Balothia & Anr., (1995) 3 SCC 221,
(v) Kartar Singh-Vs-State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569,
(vi) Hitesh Verma-Vs- State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710;
(vii) Ramesh Chandra Vaish-Vs- State of U. P.(2023) SCC OnLine SC 668
(viii) Karuppudayar-Vs- State Rep., by the Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Lalguid
Trichy & ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2015 and observed in paragraph
Nos. 6 to 9 as under :
"6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further canvassed
that, Shri Gautam Bhalerao had lodged a report on 14.09.2022 against
( 11 ) cri apeal 508.25
the present appellant no.1 and another accused reserve alleging about
abusement on his caste. However, after conclusion of the trial, the
Special Court passed the judgment and order on 30.01.2024, and
acquitted the present appellant no.1/accused and others for the offence
punishable under Section 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(iv) of the Atrocities Act.
However, again respondent no.3, who is not concerned with the said
plot lodged a false report in question, though the appellants were not
present at the spot of incident as alleged by respondent no.3 and on
the basis of said false report the Crime No.718 of 2025 was registered
against the present appellants/accused.
7. It is further canvassed that, on 22.11.2025 the present appellant
no.1- Shaikh Anis Shaikh Ibrahim lodged First Information Report
alleging that, on 22.11.2025, at about 2.00 a.m., he observed CCTV
footage on his mobile phone about visit of one Dharmapriya Bhalerao,
Buddhpriya Bhalerao and Atul Sarode alongwith five to six other
persons in an auto rickshaw in front of his Hotel and when he visited
there, the accused persons issued life threats to him. So also, the
accused cut lock of shutter and illegally entered in his hotel and took
away Rs.1,800/- from his hotel. However, on 22.11.2025, the 7 937 cri
apeal 934.25 reserve respondent no. 3/informant lodged First
Information Report No. 718 of 2025 (for short "the FIR"), which is a
counter blast FIR to the FIR bearing No.715 of 2025 lodged by him.
Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused
canvassed that the incident which has been narrated in the FIR No.
718 of 2025 is false and the accused persons never abused the
respondent no.3/ informant on his caste and no such incident occurred,
therefore, the appellants are entitled for anticipatory bail.
8. It is further canvassed that the appellant no.3 is a married lady
having sucking child. The appellant nos.1 and 2 are respectable
( 12 ) cri apeal 508.25
persons in the society. The appellants are ready and willing to co-
operate with the Investigating Officer and nothing remained to be
seized from these appellants. Further, the incident narrated in FIR
No.718 of 2025 has not occurred within the public view, therefore,
Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not create bar under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the appellants/accused
on anticipatory bail.
9. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel placed
reliance on the case of Hitesh Warma Vs. The State of 8 937 cri
appeal 934.25 reserve Uttarakhand, AIR 2020 SC 5584, wherein, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :
"15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the
informant were within the four walls of her building. It is
not the case of the informant that there was any member of
the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the
incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that
the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is
not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the
charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not
be said that those were the persons present within the four
walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken
place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in
view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it
cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was
said to be present within the four walls of the building as
per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land
which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the
parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute,
appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to
cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is
regarding possession of property pending before the Civil
Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the
said property would not disclose an offence under the Act.
reserve unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed
only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe,
( 13 ) cri apeal 508.25
17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State
of Madhya Pradesh this Court held that in a case for
applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the
deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough
to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there
was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by
the appellant only because the deceased belonged to
Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under:
"6 2019 SCC On Line SC 1104 : (AIR 2019 SC 4030)
"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must
be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)
(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed
against the person on the ground that such person is a
member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In
the present case, the fact that the deceased was
belonging to "Khangar"-Scheduled Caste is not
disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence
was committed only on the ground that the victim was
a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the
conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable."
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the
fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there
is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.
In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the
land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who
claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a
Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not
made out".
( 14 ) cri apeal 508.25
17. Mr. Salunke the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.508/2025 relied on the case of Lala Shri Bhagwan and
Anr. V/s. Ram Chand and Anr.; Air 1965 SCC 1767, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:
"16. We have already indicated that the Allahabad High Court had
consistently taken the contrary view and held that the functions
discharged by the appropriate authorities under s. 3(2) and s. 3(3) are
administrative and an obligation to follow the principles of natural
justice cannot be imposed on the said authorities vide Narettam Saran
v. State of U.P. AIR 1954 All 232. Indeed. after the learned single
Judge had held in the present proceedings that the view taken by the
earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court was erroneous. a
Division Bench of the said High Court considered the same question
once again and re-affirmed its earlier view, vide Murlidhar v. State of
U.P.; AIR 1964 All 148. We have carefully considered the reasons
given by the learned Judges when they re- affirmed the earlier view
taken by the High Court of Allahabad on this point. With respect, we
are unable to agree with the decision in Murlidhar's(2) case.
17. In this connection, we may refer to the decisions of this Court
in Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar's case (1964) 1 SCR 200 on which
the learned single Judge partly relied in support of his conclusion. In
that case, this Court was called upon to consider the question whether
the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the State Government under s.
79 of the Satan Act was purely administrative. and it came to the
conclusion that in exercising the said revisional jurisdiction. the State
Government is not acting purely as an administrative authority; its
decision is judicial or quasi-judicial, and so, it is essential that the
State Government should follow the principles of natural justice
before reaching its conclusion under that section. The scheme of the
( 15 ) cri apeal 508.25
relevant provisions of the Watan Act cannot. however, be said to be
exactly similar to the scheme of the Act with which we are concerned;
whereas section 3 of the Act with which we are concerned in the
present appeal deals with the statutory rights conferred on the tenants,
the relevant sections of the Watan Act dealt with the right of
possession of the Watan property itself. That being so, it cannot be
said that the decision in Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar's case (supra)
can be deemed to have overruled by necessary implication the view
taken by the Allahabad High Court in regard to the nature of the
power conferred on the appropriate authorities by Ss.3 and 7-F of the
Act.
18. Before we part with this appeal, however, we ought to
point out that it would have been appropriate if the learned single
Judge had not taken upon himself to consider the question as to
whether the earlier decisions of the Division Benches of the High
Court needed to be re-considered and revised. It is plain that the said
decisions had not been directly or even by necessary implication
overruled by any decision of this Court; indeed, the judgment
delivered by the learned single Judge shows that he was persuaded to
re-examine the matter himself and in fact he had substantially
recorded his conclusion that the earlier decisions were erroneous even
before his attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in
Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar's case. It is hardly necessary to
emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum
require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to
take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of
a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he
should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but
should refer the matter to a Division Bench or, in a proper case, place
the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute
a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and
( 16 ) cri apeal 508.25
traditional way to deal with such matters and it is rounded on healthy
principles of Judicial decorum and propriety. It is to be regretted that
the learned single Judge departed from this traditional way in the
present case and chose to examine the question himself."
18. In Vijaymala w/o Tanaji Dolare and Balkrishna Uttamrao Mule
cited (supra), it has been observed that, there could not be abusement on
caste in chorus. As per the observations made in the case of Mukesh
Kumar Saini cited (supra), there must be specific accusations against each
of the accused and Section 34 of the IPC cannot be pressed into service and
omnibus statement that all the accused persons uttered allegedly
humiliating word may not be enough and to ascertain the fact of
abusement in chorus, the trial is required to be conducted.
19. In the case in hand, the appellants specifically alleged that on
26.05.2025 at about 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm when he was closing his hotel at
that time the present appellants/accused and other co-accused visited his
hotel and after meal he provided Bisleri water bottle and on seeing the
portrait of Shivaji Maharaj they abused him by saying that, ' rq>h QksVks
yko.;kph yk;dh ukgh- egkjk rq>h gkWVsy pkyokph lq/nk yk;dh ukgh'. No
doubt, the hotel run by the respondent/informant falls within the ambit of
public place as it is accessible to general public. As per the contents of FIR,
said sentence seems to be uttered by a single person and it does not appear
( 17 ) cri apeal 508.25
that all the accused persons at a time abused him on his caste. The
contents of the FIR also does not show that other customers were present
in the hotel when castiest slur were hurled, hence, it can not be said that
said incident has occurred within the public view. Therefore, considering
the law laid down in Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of
Bihar & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No. 12144/2025, decided on 12.01.2026 by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the case of Kiran vs. Rajkumar cited (supra),
as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, no bar is created to
enlarge the appellants/accused on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C..
20. It is a matter of record that, on 15.07.2025, this Court passed
an order in Criminal Appeal No.508/2025 and granted ad-interim
anticipatory bail to the appellant. On 17.10.2025, this Court passed an
order in Criminal Appeal No.697/2025 and granted ad-interim anticipatory
bail to the appellant on certain terms and conditions. Since, the
Investigating Officer has already seized the crime weapon, therefore,
considering the nature of crime, I am on the view that, no custodial
interrogation of the appellants/accused is required and it would be just and
proper to extend the ad-interim relief/protection granted by this Court
during the pendency of the trial on the same terms and conditions.
( 18 ) cri apeal 508.25
21. In view of above, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER:
i. The impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1, Beed in Criminal Bail Application
No.594/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
ii. The impugned order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1, Beed in Criminal Bail Application
No.710/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. The ad interim orders granted by this Court on 16.07.2025 to
appellant/Sunny Ramkisan Shinde and on 17.10.2025 to appellant/Akshay
Rangnath Sakhre enlarging them on anticipatory bail is hereby extended
till the conclusion of the trial.
iv. The appellants in both these appeals shall attend the concerned
police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing of
the charge-sheet and they shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.
v. The appellants in both these appeals shall not contact and/or
influence the witnesses and they shall not tamper with evidence in any
manner whatsoever.
vi. The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per rules and it be
paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority.
vii. Accordingly, both the criminal appeals are disposed of.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]
mubashir
