1 23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2025 1. Amar Dadasaheb Patil 2. Shankar Ganpati Patil 3. Balaso Tukaram Patil 4. Kakaso Yashwant Patil 5. Sadashiv Babaso Patil 6. Avinash Shamrao Patil 7. Suresh Pandurang Kameri 8. Pramod Shivaji Patil 9. Rekhatai Vitthal Sutar 10. Popat Pralhad Mane 11. Rupali Popat Mane ….Appellants VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra and Anr. ....Respondents ----- Mr. Pratik Prakash Jadhav, for Appellants. Dr. A. A. Takalkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Mohsin Khan i/b Mr. Amar Dhumal, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Through Legal Aid). PSI, Munde, Miraj Rural Police Station, Sangli, present. ----- CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 10th JULY, 2026. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants, learned APP for the Respondent – State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. The Appellants have approached this Court seeking bail in connection with Crime No.622 of 2025 dated 25/11/2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(zc), 3(1)(za)(D), 3(1)(r) of the Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.07.14 12:20:17 +0530 2 23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) 3. After hearing for sometime, as this Court was not inclined to grant relief for the Appellant No.1 - Amar Dadasaheb Patil is concerned, the learned counsel for the Appellants, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the appeal on behalf of the Appellant No.1 as there are criminal antecedents against the Appellant No.1 and this Court was not inclined to grant any relief. Permission is granted. The appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn, as against the Appellant No.1 is concerned. 4. Insofar as the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are concerned, the learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that, even if the allegations in the first information report are taken at their face value, they may, at the highest, make out a case under the Atrocities Act against Appellant No.1 and not against the Appellant Nos.2 to 11. It is further submitted that, there is a delay of about three months in lodging the first information report. The Appellant Nos.2 to 11 have no criminal antecedents. By interim order dated 18/12/2025, this Court had granted interim protection to Appellant Nos.2 to 11 along with Appellant No.1. The Appellants have attended the concerned police station and have co- operated with the investigation. The Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are further ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Shantanu S. Dhudum 3 23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC Hence, the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 may be protected by confirming the interim order. 5. As against this, the learned APP as well as the learned appointed counsel for Respondent No.2 have strongly opposed the appeal on the ground that the Appellants are involved in the serious offence under the Atrocities Act. It is further submitted that Section 18 of the Atrocities Act specifically bars the grant of anticipatory bail to the person accused of offences under the said Act. According to the prosecution, there are direct allegations in the first information report and there is ample evidence collected against the Appellants and charge-sheet is now filed charge- sheeting the present Appellants under the serious offence under the Atrocities Act. The Appellants have acted together to outcast the “Pardhi Community” from the village and the offence is serious in nature. If the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are released on bail, they may again commit identical offences in future. Hence, this is not a fit case to release the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 on bail. 6. I have gone through the investigation papers which has culminated into filing of the charge-sheet. Prima facie, Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are not directly named in the F.I.R. The allegations of abusing in the name of caste is against the main accused Appellant No.1 - Amar Dadasaheb Patil, and his application is already withdrawn. Whether the offences under the Atrocities Act are made out against the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 is a matter which requires consideration at the trial. Though Shantanu S. Dhudum 4 23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are referred to in the First Information Report by reference to their respective professions, whether they were parties to the alleged resolution passed by the villagers to socially boycott the complainant and members of the Pardhi community is a matter to be decided by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by the prosecution. 7. However, taking into consideration that Appellant Nos.2 to 11 have no criminal antecedents and were protected by interim order and have co-operated with the investigation. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed, and they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, therefore, I am inclined to protect the Appellant Nos.2 to 11. Hence, the following order: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The interim order dated 18/12/2025, insofar as it relates to Appellant Nos.2 to 11, is hereby confirmed. iii. Since the charge-sheet has been filed, the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer. iv. The Appellant Nos.2 to 11 shall not directly or indirectly, threaten, induce, influence, or contact the complainant or any other members of the complainant’s family. Shantanu S. Dhudum 5 23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC v. A single violations of the aforesaid conditions, or any complaint of threatening or intimidating the complainant or member of his community, shall entitle the prosecution or the complainant to seek cancellation of bail. 8. In view of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the appeal is allowed and stands disposed off accordingly. 9. The fees of the learned appointed counsel Mr. Amar Dhumal, shall be quantified as per rules by the High Court Legal Aid Sub- Committee. ( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum