1 958appeal259.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2025 APPELLANTS 1. Ramesh s/o Rustumrao Mundhe, Age 56 years, Occu: Agriculturist, 2. Sarthak s/o Ramesh Mundhe, Age 23 Years, Occu: Agriculturist, Both 1 and 2 R/o Malegaon Najik Kinhi, Post Amna, Tah. Malegaon, District Washim. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Jaulka, Tah. Malegaon, Distt. Washim. 2. Ramdas s/o Gajanan Girhe, Age 43 years, Occu: Retired Army Officer, R/o Kamlambeshwar, Tah. Malegaon, Distt Washim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.S. Thotange, counsel for appellants. Mr. A.J. Gohokar, APP for respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATE : 24/06/2025 rkn 2025:BHC-NAG:6153 2 958appeal259.2025.odt ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3. By preferring this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Washim, in Criminal Bail Application No. 135/2025, by which the anticipatory bail application of the present appellants was rejected. 4. The appellants are arraigned as accused on the basis of the report lodged by Ramdas Gajanan Girhe, on an allegation that on 05/05/2025, while he was proceeding from Malegaon to Washim, a motorcycle came in front of him, pulled him over, abused him, and assaulted him by slapping. It is further alleged that they have abused him on his caste and also assaulted him by means of a stone, due to which he sustained the injuries. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act of 1989’). rkn 3 958appeal259.2025.odt 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, who submitted that appellants are apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with the above-said crime. Initially, they approached the Special Court for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest, but the same was rejected by the Sessions Judge, who observed that there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. He submitted that, as omnibus allegations is levelled against all the appellants, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not attract, and therefore, the observation of the Special Judge is erroneous and liable to be set aside. He further invited my attention towards recitals of the First Information Report (FIR) and submitted that, except the reference of the caste, there is nothing mentioned in the FIR that the present appellants have abused the informant by uttering the words that will humiliate and insult him. Thus, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not attract. 6. The learned APP strongly opposed the said application and submitted that recitals of the FIR show that by referring the caste, he was abused. Thus, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will attract, and therefore, the order passed by rkn 4 958appeal259.2025.odt the Sessions Judge is to be maintained. 7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals of the FIR, it reveals that the allegation against the present appellants is ominous in nature and from the entire sentence i.e. “ -----------rqEgh vka/kqMs y; ektys rqEgkyk ghldk nk[kokp ykxrks] rqEgkyk vkj{k.k vlY;keqGs ukSdjh ykxyh ukghrj rq>h dk; vkSdkr gksrh uksdjhoj ykxk;ph] vkehZP;k ukSdjhik;h rq xkMh ?ksryh vls Eg.kqu------------”, it appears that there is no specific allegation against the present appellants that they have used the words on his caste, humiliated, and insulted the informant. Thus, considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the present appellants, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not attract, as omnibus allegations is levelled against all the appellants. As far as custodial interrogation is concerned, which is also not required, the allegation of assault by means of a stone is against the other co-accused. 8. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the present appellants, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not attract, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. a] Criminal appeal is allowed. rkn 5 958appeal259.2025.odt b] The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Bail Application No. 135/2025, rejecting the anticipatory bail application is hereby quashed and set aside. c] In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 141/2025 registered with Police Station Jaulka, Tah. Malegaon, District Washim for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989, the appellants namely (1) Ramesh s/o Rustumrao Mundhe and (2) Sarthak s/o Ramesh Mundhe, shall be released on bail, on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount. d] The appellants shall attend the concerned police station once in a week on Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and shall cooperate with the investigating agency. rkn 6 958appeal259.2025.odt e] The appellants shall not induce, threat or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case. Criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly. [URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.] rkn