[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Raju Sitaram Rathod And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:12296
Apeal109-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2021
1. Raju s/o Sitaram Rathod
Age 36 years, Occu: Agri
2. Anil s/o Sitaram Rathod ... Appellants
Age 30 years, Occu: Agri
3. Bhau @ Yuvraj s/o Sitaram Rathod
Age 20 years, Occu: Ari
All Ambu Naik Tanda,
Khandavi, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Though Police Station, Georai Dist. Beed
2. Santosh s/o Sanjay Bhosale ... Respondents
Age 30 years, Occu: Agri
R/o Ambu Naik Tanda,
Khandavi, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed
Mr. Vilas P. Sawant, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. V. M. Chate, APP for the Respondent State
Ms. Sawari M. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2-Appointed
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
RESERVED ON : 17.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.03.2026
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Heard Shri Vilas P. Sawant, learned counsel for the Appellants,
Mr. V. M. Chate, learned APP for the Respondent State and Ms. Sawari M.
Patil, learned counsel appointed through the legal aid for the Respondent
No.2.
Apeal109-21.odt
2. By the present Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the
appellants/original accused take exception to the order dated 04.02.2021
passed by the learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in
Criminal Bail Application No. 54 of 2021, whereby the learned Judge
declined to grant anticipatory bail to the present appellants in connection
with Crime No. 420 of 2020, registered with Georai Police Station, District
Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 143, 147, 148
r/w Sec. 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 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.
3. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of the
respective parties, I have gone through the contents of the FIR.
4. It is a matter of record that, on 19.09.2020, respondent No.
2/informant lodged a report with Georai Police Station, District Beed,
alleging that he belongs to the community of Pardhi, a tribal community.
He stated that on 18.09.2020, at about 8.00 p.m., his five-year-old son,
Umesh Santosh Bhosale was stoned by Shiva Sitaram Rathod while he was
going to the shop. His son Umesh returned home while screaming at his
grandmother Smt. Darabai Mohan Bhosale, who questioned Shiva Sitaram
Rathod as to why he had stoned her grandson and then returned home.
Apeal109-21.odt
The mother of present Respondent no. 2 was followed by original accused
No. 1 Shiva Sitaram Rathod, along with several others, namely Kailas
Chavan, Ramu Prakash Chavan, Sunil Dev Chavan, Vijay Prabhu Rathod,
Gorakh Chashthan, Naya Chayan, Prakash Chavan, Vijay Ramu Chavan,
Sanjay Pomya Chavan, Kakasaheb Namdev Chavan, Ashok Namdev
Chavan, Palya Ramu Chavan, Avesh Ankush Chavan, Ankush Chavan,
Nitin Chavan, Ramu Chavan, Bhau Chavan, Sudam Chashthan, Bhau
Rathod (appellant No. 3), Raju Rathod (appellant No. 1), Anil Rathod
(appellant No. 2), Deo Soma Chavan and Sunil Deo Chavan. Thereafter,
the crowd of about twenty-four persons came to the Pardhi vasti armed
with sticks and axes and without any enquiry they started assaulting men,
women and children indiscriminately of Pardhi Community. The
informant's mother Smt. Dari Mohan Bhosale, fell unconscious at the spot
due to the assault. Shri Sudam Bhau Chavan allegedly struck the
informant on his hand with a stick. Taking advantage of darkness, the
informant ran away and hid at a dark place and witnessed the incident.
The mob vandalized his house, damaged his motorcycle, destroyed
household articles and also damaged the roof of his house. Thereafter, the
mob proceeded to the house of Mentab Mohan Bhosale and assaulted
Kunjya Ramu Chavan, Rukmini Chavan, Maintab Mohan Bhosale and
Shahadeo Congress Chavan. It is further alleged that, Shri Avesh Ankush
Chavan, Nitin Chavan, Ramu Chavan, Bhau Chavan, Shiva Chavan, Anil
Apeal109-21.odt
Ankush Chavan and Sudam Chavan dragged Kajal Mentab Bhosale to the
ground and assaulted her, due to which she was unable to stand. Smt.
Rukminibai also sustained a head injury. The accused belongs to Banjara
community and all the accused jointly attacked on him as well as on the
male and female members of Pardhi Community. On the basis of said
report, Crime No. 420 of 2020 came to be registered with Georai Police
Station, District Beed, for the aforesaid offences.
5. After registration of the crime, the present appellants/accused
approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, by filing
Criminal Bail Application No. 54 of 2021. By order dated 04.02.2021, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the said application. The
learned Trial Court observed that, the statements of the informant and the
witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
supports the occurrence of the incident, and that the names of the
appellants and other co-accused are specifically mentioned therein. The
learned Trial Court further observed that, the incident took place in the
locality where the informant and members of his community resides and
sufficient material available on record to show the involvement of the
appellants/accused while commission of the alleged offences.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed that,
the alleged incident took place during night hours and that there is no
Apeal109-21.odt
whisper in the FIR regarding any abusement on caste of the Respondent
No. 2 on part of the appellants/accused. It is further submitted that, eight
co-accused, namely Bhau Chavan, Sudam Chavan, Avesh Chavan, Ankush
Chavan, Sanjay Chavan, Pralhad @ Palya Chavan, Sunil Chavan and Deu
Chavan, who are involved in the same crime and are already enlarged on
anticipatory bail by order dated 04.12.2020 passed by this Court in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 620 of 2020, 585 of 2020 and 553 of 2020.
Therefore, on the ground of parity, the present appellants are also entitled
to anticipatory bail. Hence, prayed for quashment of impugned order
dated 04-2-2021 and to released the appellants accused on anticipatory
bail.
7. The learned APP canvassed that, as per the narration in the FIR the
group of about 24 persons including the present appellants attacked on
locality of Pardhi community and destroyed their houses/hutments and
thrown away their Household articles during course of the incident. The
incident took place in the Pardhi Vasti, where several persons, including
the informant's mother and others were severely beaten and substantial
damage was caused to the informant's property. It is further submitted that
the said incident occurred in the Pardhi Vasti and within public view.
8. In support of his submissions, the learned APP has placed reliance
on the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Ors, AIR 2025 SC 4083,
Apeal109-21.odt
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
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."
9. Ms. Sawari M. Patil, learned counsel appointed through the legal aid
for the Respondent No.2, supported submissions canvassed on behalf of
the prosecution. She canvassed that, the appellants and other accused
Apeal109-21.odt
persons have visited the locality of the Respondent no. 2 and assaulted the
male and female members of Pardhi, Scheduled Tribe Community and
destroyed their hutments with ill motive. So also, the appellants and other
accused outraged modesty of the female members of the Pardhi,
Scheduled Tribe Community and said incident occurred in public place
and within the public view. Therefore, as per Section 18 of the Special Act
bar is created to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail, hence, prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the
sides, I have gone through the FIR. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that
the informant/respondent No. 2 has alleged that the group of about 24
persons including the present appellants visited at the locality of Pardhi
Community armed with sticks and axes, and without any enquiry, they
started assaulting men, women and children of the Pardhi Community,
which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe. The informant was allegedly
assaulted with a stick by accused Sudam Bhau Chavan. Ms Kajal was
severely beaten on her thigh and that Rukminibai sustained a head injury.
Though it is contended that, the informant belongs to the Pardhi
community and the accused persons belong to the Banjara community,
however, there is no specific allegations about abusement on caste or any
over act attributed to the present appellants. The informant has not stated
Apeal109-21.odt
that, the appellants abused him on the basis of caste within public view
with intent to insult him. The prosecution has failed to prima facie show
that, the alleged acts were committed solely on account of the informant
and his family members belonging to a particular caste or tribe. However,
it appears that, because of master Umesh Santosh Bhosale, the son of
Respondent no. 2 was stoned by one of the Accused Shiva Sitaram Rathod
while he was going to the shop and returned while screaming but there is
no allegation about abusement on Caste. In view thereof, prima facie, no
offence under the Atrocities Act is made out, and consequently, there was
no bar under Section 18 of the said Act for the learned Special Judge to
entertain the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, in light of the settled position of law laid down by this Court as
well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, particularly in Prithviraj Chavan v. Union
of India (Writ Petition No. 1015 of 2018, decided on 10.02.2020)
11. 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 the arrest of a person who faces specific
accusation having committed the offence under the SC/ST Atrocities Act
within the public view.
Apeal109-21.odt
12. It appears from the record that, eight co-accused, namely
Bhau Chavan, Sudam Chavan, Avesh Chavan, Ankush Chavan, Sanjay
Chavan, Pralhad @ Palya Chavan, Sunil Chavan and Deu Chavan, who
were involved in the same crime and allegedly played rolls similar to the
present appellants/ accused are already released on anticipatory bail by
this Court (Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) on 04.12.2020 in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 620 of 2020, 585 of 2020 and 553 of 2020. The prosecution
has not separately attributed any distinct or specific role to the present
appellants as compared to the said co-accused. In such circumstances, the
principle of parity would apply in favour of the present appellants for
grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down in the
aforesaid decisions, the appellants have made out a prima facie case for
the grant of anticipatory bail, and therefore, the impugned order, deserves
to be quashed and set aside.
13. On 04.03.2021, this Court passed an order and enlarged the
appellants accused on interim anticipatory bail on certain conditions.
Therefore it would be just and proper to confirm and extend the interim
order till conclusion of the trial, on same terms and conditions.
14. In view of above discussion, I proceed to pass the following
order:-
Apeal109-21.odt
ORDER
(i) The Criminal appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Bail Application
No. 54 of 2021, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Appellants are already released on ad-interim anticipatory
bail vide order dated 04.03.2021 on execution of P.B. and S.B.
of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the said interim protection is
hereby extended during pendency of the trial.
(iv) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or
influence the witnesses.
15. The learned counsel Ms. Sawari M. Patil, was appointed for
Respondent No.2 from legal aid, hence, her fees shall be quantified as per
rule and be paid by the Legal Aid Sub Committee, High Court, Bench at
Aurangabad.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )
JPChavan
