14-apeal-628-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 628 OF 2025 Santosh R. Gharat …Appellant V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. ………….. Mr. Surel Shah, Sr. Advocate a/w Adv. Saakshay Relekar i/by. Adv. Susmit S. Phatale, for the Appellant. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State. Ms Sheetal Malvankar for Respondent No.2. ………….. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 11.09.2026. P.C. : 1. This appeal under Section 14-A of the of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “SC & ST Act”) takes exception to the order dated 11.6.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panvel-Raigad below Exhibit- 1 in Criminal Bail Application No.343 of 2025. 2. By the order impugned, learned Special Judge has rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed by the present appellant, who is apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.98 of 2025 registered at Uran Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act. 3. It is the prosecution case that on the date of the incident, which took place on 09.03.2025 during a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, the present appellant and the co-accused Prashant Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3 14-apeal-628-25.odt Mhatre, with a view to humiliate the first informant and prosecution witnesses, who belong to a Scheduled Caste, had abused them on their caste. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/first informant. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a delay of more than one month in lodging the First Information Report. It is submitted that though the allegations against the present appellant and co-accused Prashant Mhatre are identical, the learned Special Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused Prashant Mhatre and refused to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the appellant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. The learned Senior Counsel submits that there are no other criminal antecedents against the present appellant. 6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent–State and the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the complaint in relation to the alleged incident was lodged on the very same day of the incident, i.e., on 09.03.2025. It is submitted that the FIR came to be registered after recording the statements of the witnesses and therefore, there is no no delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that in view of the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC & ST Act, the present appeal for Dinesh S. Sherla 2/3 14-apeal-628-25.odt grant of anticipatory bail may not be entertained. 7. I have perused the complaint dated 09.03.2025 lodged by the first informant and the prosecution witnesses. The entire allegations in the said complaint are against the co-accused Prashant Naresh Mhatre, and nothing is alleged against the present appellant. I have also perused the statement of witness Rekha Rajesh Kamble recorded on 12.03.2025. The abuses on caste are specifically attributed to co-accused Prashant Mhatre, and not to the present appellant. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed. O R D E R (a) The Appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned order to the extent of refusing the anticipatory bail to the present appellant, is quashed and set aside. (c) In the event of arrest of the appellant in C.R. No.98 of 2025 registered at Uran Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act, he shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] Dinesh S. Sherla 3/3