[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Adv Rahul Baban Zaware And Other vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 22 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2613
CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 604 OF 2024
1] Rahul Baban Zaware
Age: 38 years, Occ. Advocate,
R/o. Venkute, Tq. Parner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2] Sandip Laxman Choudhari
Age: 42 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Hanga, Tq. Parner,
Dist. Ahmednagar
3] Dipak Dnyandev Lanke
Age: 49 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Hanga, Tq. Parner,
Dist. Ahmednagar ... APPELLANTS
(Ori. Accused Nos.1, 7 & 18)
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Tophkhana Police Station,
Dist. Ahmednagar
2] The Superintendent of Police
Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar
3] X. Y. Z. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. R. D. Raut, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. A. D. Ostwal, Advocate for Respondent No.3
....
1 of 15
(( 2 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
RESERVED ON : January 17, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : January 22, 2026
JUDGMENT :
-
1. The appellants/original accused Nos. 1, 7 and 18 in
Crime No. 0698 of 2024, registered with Tophkhana Police Station,
Ahmednagar, on 07.06.2024, have invoked the jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and takes exception to the
judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail
Application No.811 of 2024, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge and Special Court under the Atrocities Act, thereby
declined to enlarge the present appellants/accused on pre-arrest bail.
2. It is the case of prosecution that, on 07.06.2024, the
respondent No.3 / informant lodged a report with Tophkhana Police
Station alleging that, she is residing with her husband and in-laws,
jointly. Her husband is an agriculturist by profession. By caste, she is
"Hindu Mahar", which is recognised as Scheduled Cast. Her husband
is belong to Hindu Maratha caste. Prior to two years, she performed
inter-caste marriage out of love affairs. On 06.06.2024, at about
11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon, when she was standing in front of her
2 of 15
(( 3 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
house and her husband was inside the house. At that time 3 - 4 four-
wheelers came in front of her house and stopped. Thereafter total 24
persons including the present appellants/original accused Nos. 1, 7
and 18 alighted from those vehicles and visited her. At that time,
accused No.1/present appellant No.1 Rahul Baban Zaware abused her
on her caste and asked whereabout her husband. Further, accused
No.1/present appellant No.1 Rahul Baban Zaware told her that her
second husband now became the Member of Parliament and asked
her to return the 'Mangalsutra'. Therefore, she asked the present
petitioner No.1/accused No.1, not to abuse her on the basis of her
caste but the present petitioner No.1 abused her in her cast and
torned her dress and outraged her modesty. Not only this but the
petitioner No.1 gave kick on her stomach, therefore, she fell down. It
is further alleged that, the present appellant No.3 / accused No.18 Mr.
Dipak Dnyandev Lanke and accused No.7 / present appellant No.2
Sandip Laxman Choudhari also abused her on her caste and Other
accused persons were holding weapons like sickle and wooden logs.
On the basis of said report Crime No. 0698 of 2024, registered against
the present appellants/accused as well as others for the offence
punishable under Sections 354-A, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506
3 of 15
(( 4 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
and Section 37(1), 37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that, the
present appellants have falsely implicated in the present crime. They
are innocent and they were not present at the spot of incident as
alleged in the F.I.R. On contrary, on 06.06.2024, the appellant No.1
lodged a F.I.R. No.0414 of 2024 with Parner Police Station against the
husband of present respondent No.3/informant in respect of the
incident occurred on 06.06.2024 at about 12.00 p.m., when appellant
No.1 accused had visited in his Maruti Swift car at Ambedkar square,
Parner, at that time two unknown persons on two wheeler came in
front of his car and stopped his car. Thereafter all of sudden one Shri
Vijay Auti and Ritesh Panmand climbed on the bonnet of his car and
broken front glass of the car. So also, they abused him in filthy
language on account of insult on the day of election. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the appellants submit that, respondent No.3
lodged a false F.I.R. against the present appellants and the appellants
are falsely implicated in Crime No.0698 of 2024, registered with
Tophkhana Police Station.
4 of 15
(( 5 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that, the
assault on the present appellant No.1 at the hands of the husband of
respondent No.3 was captured in the CCTV footage on 06.06.2024 at
about 12.00 noon. The present appellant No.1 was hospitalized due
to injuries sustained to him in the said attack and photographs taken
at the Hospital shows that appellant No.1 was hospitalized at about
12.30 hrs. However, the respondent No.3/ informant narrated in her
F.I.R. about occurrence of incident on 06.06.2024 at about 11.30 a.m.
to 12.00 p.m. Therefore, this fact itself falsify occurrence of incident
narrted in the FIR and no such incident was occurred. But on the
basis of concocted story the appellants are falsely implicated.
5. It is further canvassed that considering the time
prescribed in the F.I.R, is at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 p.m., whereas
the appellant No.1 lodged the F.I.R. No.0414 of 2024 at about 22.12
hrs., narrating the incident occurred at about 12.00 hrs. Therefore,
there is no possibility to visit the present appellant No.1 at the house
of the informant / respondent No.3 at the time as narrated in the
F.I.R. No.0698 of 2024.
5 of 15
(( 6 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
6. The learned counsel for the appellants further canvassed
that, on 03.02.2024, the present appellant No.1 issued a
representation to the Police Inspector, Parner and informed about
receiving phone calls on his mobile from one N. D. Borude and he
called said N.D. Borude at Jai Baharang Hotel. Thereafter within five
months the said N. D. Borude and Pritesh Panmand husband of
respondent No.3 informant, Pawan Baburao Auti and other 2 - 3
unknown persons visited and it was life threat to him. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the appellants submit that the F.I.R. No.0698 of
2024 lodged by respondent No.3 is counterblast to the F.I.R. No.0414
of 2024 lodged by the present appellant No.1 just to raise the
defense. So also, story narrated in said F.I.R. does not constitute
offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act. It is further
submit that, no positive assertion given in the FIR that the appellants/
accused are having knowledge about the caste of respondent No.3 /
informant.
7. It is further canvassed that the informant/respondent
No.3 has only stated that she belongs to Scheduled Caste but she has
not disclosed in FIR that the present appellants/accused are having
knowledge about her caste and they abused in her caste. Therefore,
6 of 15
(( 7 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
merely with an intention to insult, abused on her caste does not
constitute the offence. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the
SC/ST Atrocities Act does not create to enlarge the present appellants
on anticipatory bail.
8. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel for
the appellants placed reliance on the following judgments/case laws:-
(i) Judgment dated 10.08.2020, passed by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.351 of 2020 (Dada @ Anil Navnath
Murkute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another);
(ii) Judgment dated 05.12.2019, passed by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.1084 of 2019 (Vasantrao Madhavrao
Vhadgir and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
another);
(iii) Judgment dated 08.04.2019, passed by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2019 (Jairam Shankarrao Tale
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another WITH Criminal
Appeal No.209 of 2019 (Savita Gajanan Ghume Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and another);
(iv) Judgment dated 18.02.2020, passed by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.1163 of 2019 (Vijaymala Tanaji
Dolare Vs. State of Maharashtra), reported in AIRONLINE
2020 BOM 159;
(v) Judgment dated 12.01.2026, passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw
Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and another, Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12144 of 2025.
9. Per contra, Mr. R. D. Raut, the learned APP for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A. D. Ostwal, learned counsel for
Respondent No.3, strongly opposed the appeal.
7 of 15
(( 8 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
10. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that, on
06.06.2024, the incident of abusing on caste at the hands of the
accused and assault was occurred at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 p.m.
and soon after the incident the respondent No.3/Informant visited at
Parner Police Station to lodge report, however, her Report was not
accepted because of political pressure because the brother of accused
No.18/appellant No.3 is Member of Parliament. However, the F.I.R.
No.0414 of 2024 lodged by appellant No.1 because of said political
pressure.
11. It is further canvassed on behalf the Respondent No. 3
that, the place of incident in both FIR i.e. F.I.R. No.0414 of 2024 and
F.I.R. No.0698 of 2024 are different. Therefore, the incident narrated
in F.I.R. No.0698 of 2024 is different and it is in respect of abusing
the informant on her caste in front of her house in the public view.
Therefore, Section 18 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act create bar of Section
438 of Cr.P.C.. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to release on
anticipatory bail.
12. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel for
the respondents placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble
8 of 15
(( 9 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
Supreme Court in the case of Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and
Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1886, wherein the incident of abusing
the informant on the basis of caste occurred in front of the
informant's house. While considering the scope of Section 18 of the
said Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the provisions of
Section 18 of the Act, by express language, exclude the applicability
of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and create an absolute bar against the
grant of anticipatory bail in relation to the arrest of a person who
faces a specific accusation of having committed an offence under the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
13. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of
both the sides, I have gone through the F.I.R. On face of record, it
appears that, the informant/respondent No.3 belong to Hindu Mahar,
which is recognised as Scheduled Cast within meaning of clause 24
Article 366 of the Constitution of India as per Sec 2(c) of the S.C./S.T.
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The Respondent no. 3/Informant
herself stated that she married out of love affairs with the person who
is Hindu Maratha, which is non-schedule cast. The informant
specifically alleged that, on 06.06.2024, when she was standing in
front of her house at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 p.m., at that time, her
9 of 15
(( 10 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
husband was inside the house and at that time 3 - 4 cars came there
and stoped. Thereafter, the present appellants and other 21 persons
who are named in the F.I.R. alighted from the said cars. Thereafter,
the present appellant No.1 Rahul Baban Zaware visited her and
uttered that "dk x egkjVs vkeps ejkB~;kps ?kjkr vkyh] --------- rq>k nqljk
uojk [kklnkj >kyk vkgs- R;kus rqyk eaxGlw =k dsys vkgs rs vkeps nsoqu Vkd-"
(As to why Mahar caste person entered in the house of Maratha. Her
second husband became Member of Parliament. He made
Mangalsutra for you and asked to return the same). Thereafter, the
accused No.1 torned her dress and outraged her modesty then he
kicked on her stomach, therefore, she felt down. At that time, the
appellant No.3 / original accused No.18 Dipak Lanke also abused on
her caste saying that " rqyk egkjkpk HksVyk ukgh dk] ejkB~;kpk HksVyk dk\."
(She did not get the person from Mahar community and only she got
the person from Maratha caste). So also, the present appellant
No.3/accused No.18 Mr. Dipak Dnyandev Lanke and accused
No.7/present appellant No.2 Sandip Laxman Choudhari abused her
on her caste in front of her house within public view.
14. Needless to say that as per contents of the F.I.R., incident
of abusing the informant/respondent No.3 on her caste occurred in
10 of 15
(( 11 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
front of her house in public view. In the case of Dada @ Anil Navnath
Murkute, cited (supra), this Court considered the case of Prithvi Raj
Chauhan Vs. Union of India, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 159,
and held that, in F.I.R. there is no whisper that, the appellant accused
had knowledge about the first informant belongs to scheduled caste
or scheduled tribe community and there is no reference to the caste of
the appellant. As well as the appellant accused allegedly have hurled
abuses to the first informant on the basis of caste by saying
"Maharde" and was not in public view.
15. In the case of Vasant Madhavrao Vhadgir, cited (supra),
the accused were enlarged on anticipatory bail on the ground that,
the informant had disclosed about uttering words at the hands of the
appellant accused with "Maharache" or "Adiwasi" etc., and "Tumhi
Majale Ka" etc.
16. In the case of Jairam Shankarrao Tale, cited (supra),
there were no whisper or averments in the F.I.R. that, the appellants
are not the members of S.C. or S.T. category and the appellants
accused were aware that they had knowledge about the caste of first
informant.
11 of 15
(( 12 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
17. In the case of Vijaymala Tanaji Dolare, cited (supra), the
F.I.R. does not discloses the specific abuses at the hands of the
appellant / accused No.3, and only the averment was made that the
accused had abused informant on the basis of his caste.
18. In the case of Keshaw Mahto @ Meshaw Kumar Mahto,
cited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
provisions of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act, and held
that, the said offence is attracted where the reasons for intentional
insult or the intimidation by accused is subjected to the member of
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and said offence cannot stand
merely fact that the informant / complainant is the member of
Scheduled Caste and observed in paragraph Nos. 13 to 15, as under:-
"13. To put it briefly - first, the fact that the complainant
belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not
be enough. Secondly, any insult or intimidation towards the
complainant must be on the account of such person being a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
14. With a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity, we deem it
appropriate to mention that even mere knowledge of the fact
that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).
15. Further, for an offence to be made out under Section 3(1)
(s), merely abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. At the same time, saying
caste name would also not constitute an offence."
12 of 15
(( 13 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
19. In the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, cited
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Section 18 of the
SC/ST Atrocities Act creates a bar for invoking section 438 of Cr.P.C. if
the accused have committed an offence under the SC/ST Atrocities
Act in public view.
20. In the case in hand, the incident of abusing the
informant/respondent No.3 in her caste appears to be occurred in
front house of the informant/Respondent no. 3 in the public view.
Therefore, I am on the view that, the accused have allegedly been
committed the offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST
Atrocities Act, therefore, as per the ratio laid down in the case of
Kiran cited (supra), bar under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is created and the
appellants are not entitled to release on anticipatory bail.
21. No doubt, it is canvassed on behalf of the appellants that,
the husband of respondent No.3 assaulted the Appellant No. 1, due
which he sustained griveious injuries and said incident has been
captured in the CCTV footage on 06.06.2024 at about 12.00 noon. So
also, the appellant No.1 was hospitalized and photographs taken at
the Hospital shows that appellant No.1 was admitted in Hospital at
13 of 15
(( 14 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
about 12.30 hrs. Therefore it falsify occurrence of incident narrated
in the FIR by the Respondent no. 3/Informant. However, said defense
can not be considered at the initial stage while deciding the
application for anticipatory bail. But it requires to consider the
procurance of incident of abusement to the member of SC, ST
community in the public view or not.
22. Further though the learned counsel for appellants
canvassed about occurrence of incidents in two different F.I.R.
Nos.0414 of 2024 lodged by the Appellant no. 1 and F.I.R. No.0698
of 2024 lodged by the Respondent No. 3/ Informant, however, in both
FIRs place and time of occurrence of incident is different. Therefore,
the defense set out by the appellants is not requires for consideration
while deciding the application for anticipatory bail.
23. On 01.07.2024, the learned Special Court passed the
impugned order and granted anticipatory bail to other accused
persons in Crime No.0698 of 2024, however, declined to grant
anticipatory bail to the present appellants/original accused Nos. 1, 7
and 18. Therefore, I do not find that the accused have make out
substantial grounds to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
14 of 15
(( 15 )) CRI**-APPEAL-604-2024
24. In view of above discussion, the present appeal is liable to
be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The interim order dated 08.07.2024, passed by this Court,
enlarging the present appellants/accused on pre-arrest
bail, is hereby revoked, and the bail bond, if any,
furnished by them also stands revoked.
(iii) The appellants are granted two weeks time to surrender
before the Investigating Officer.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
SMS
15 of 15
