1 44criapeal836.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2025 1. Saleem s/o Ajmoddin Shaikh, Age; 29 years, Occ; Business, 2. Aftab s/o Wahid Shaikh, Age; 20 years, Occ; Education, 3. Muskan d/o Wahid Shaikh, Age; 21 years, Occ. Education, 4. Shaheenbegum w/o Wahid Shaikh, Age; 41 years, Occ; Household, All r/o Kranti Nagar, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Superintendent of Police, Beed Tq. & Dist. Beed. 2. The Police Inspector, Ambajogai City Police Station, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. 3. Shilpa Krian Naikwade, Age; 40 years, Occ. Labour, R/o; Krantinagar, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Munde Sachin B. APP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State : Mr. R.D.Raut Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr.Kamble Shirish M., Mr.Bagate Sunil Fakirrao, Mr.Wakode Amolkumar Samadhan, Mr.Kasare Pramod Ranba, ... CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 02.02.2026 2 44criapeal836.25 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocities Act”) r/w Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants/accused takes exception to the order dated 28.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai in Criminal Bail Application No. 502 of 2025, whereby, the learned trial Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants in connection with Crime No. 492 of 2025, registered with Ambejogai City Police Station, District Beed. 3. On the face of record, it appears that on 03.10.2025, the respondent No. 3-informant lodged an oral report with Ambejogai City Police Station, District Beed alleging that she and the accused/appellant are neighbourers. A cow of accused Wahid Shaikh had attacked Shweta the daughter of the informant, therefore, she asked the appellant No.4 Shahinbegum w/o Wahed Shaikh, to tie the cow and on that count on 01.10.2025 at about 10.00 p.m. appellants/accused assaulted her and abused on her caste i.e. the appellants/accused were knowing that the victim respondent No. 3 belongs to scheduled caste. The said incident has occurred in front of the house of respondent No. 3. So also, all the appellants/accused assaulted due to which the informant sustained 3 44criapeal836.25 injuries. The appellants/accused No.1 Saleem Shaikh assaulted the informant’s husband and issued life threats. The neighbours, Satyabhama Mahadev Kamble, Parshuram Laxman Shinde intervened and separated the accused persons and the respondent No. 3. On the basis of FIR, Crime No. 492 of 2025 has been registered against the present appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351(2), 3 (5), of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. The appellants had filed an application bearing Criminal Bail Application No. 502 of 2025, before the Special Court, Ambejogai, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime no. 492 of 2025. 5. On 28.10.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court, Ambejogai, passed the impugned order holding that the alleged abusement on caste to the respondent No. 3-informant has occurred in the public view, therefore, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Kiran V. Rajukmar Jivraj Jain - AIR 2025, SC 4083 (equv. Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024 SCC Online 2249), it is held that the abusement to a member of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes occurred within public view, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, a bar is created under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the accused on bail. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed 4 44criapeal836.25 that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses including the statement of Komal Mahadev Kamble, who stated that she her brother Viahnu Mahadev Kamble, her sister Jaya Mahadev Kamble are blind but they identify persons by their voice. Therefore, this witness Komal Kamble cannot be relied on, as she had no occasion to see the incident. The other witnesses are there to just implicate the appellants/accused and no such incident has occurred. So also respondent No. 3 lodged the present FIR on 03.10.2025, when the incident has allegedly occurred on 01.10.2025, at about 10.00 p.m., therefore, there is delay which falsify the incident. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants prays for enlarging the appellants/accused on bail. 7. Per-contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the application on the ground that as per the FIR, the incident has occurred in front of the house of the present respondent No. 3, abusing her on her caste at the hands of the accused persons and the said incident was within the public view. So also, the witnesses intervened and separated the appellants/accused and the informant. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses, Satyabhama Mahadev Kamble, Komal Mahadev Kamble and Parshuram Laxman Shinde and Shilpa Kiran Naikwade and others. He further submits that on perusal of the spot panchanama it appears that the incident of hurling abuses to the informant/respondent No. 3 at the hands of accused persons has occurred in front of the house of the respondent No.3 on the road of 5 44criapeal836.25 Lahuji Salve Chouk to the Water Tank Road. The said incident has occurred at 10.00 p.m. and it is witnessed by the people in the society, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the respondent No. 3 informant specifically alleged about the occurrence of the incident of abusement on her caste, at the hands of the accused persons occurred in-front of her house. The spot panchanama drawn by the Investigating Officer shows that the house of the respondent No. 3 is situated on road and it passes from the Lahuji Salve Sqare to the Water Tank Road. The appellants/accused are the neighbiours of the respondent No. 3 and the said abusement on caste to the respondent No. 3 has occurred within the public view. The witnesses who intervened the quarrel and separated the appellants and informant have categorically stated about abusement to the informant/respondent No. 3 on her caste, at the hands of the present appellants/accused. Therefore, considering the ratio laid down in the case of Kiran V. Rajukmar Jivraj Jain (cited supra), since the instant abusement on the caste to the respondent No. 3/informant at the hands of the accused has occurred in front of informant’s house, which comes within the ambit of public view. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the bar is created under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the appellants/accused on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order and declined to grant anticipatory bail, which does not appear perverse, illegal and bad in law and no 6 44criapeal836.25 interference is called for at the hands of this Court. 9. On 06.11.2025, this Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the appellants/accused, therefore, the said order is hereby recalled. 10. The appellants to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from today. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) mahajansb/