Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14363 (BOM)

SANJAY VITTHALRAO DHAWALE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO PS GHATANJI DIST YAVATMAL AND ANR

APEAL/221/2026 · 2026-10-01

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

6.apeal.221.26 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.221 OF 2026 Appellant : Sanjay s/o Vitthalrao Dhawale, Aged 68 years, Occu. Private, R/o. Nehru Nagar Layhout, Nrusinh Ward, Ghatanji, Yavatmal. – Versus – Respondents : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O., P.S. Ghatanji, District Yavatmal. 2. XYZ (Victim) in Crime No.342/2026, Through P.S.O., P.S. Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr. A.S. Band, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. H.D. Dubey, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Ms. Ragini Swami, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 1 st OCTOBER, 2 026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 01. Admit. With the consent of learned Counsel for both the sides, heard finally at the stage of admission. 02. 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”), the appellant-accused takes exception to the order dated 27/04/2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.87/2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, thereby declining to enlarge the appellant- 2026:BHC-NAG:13135 6.apeal.221.26 2/5 accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.342/2026 registered with Ghatanji Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1) (w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act. 03. Upon perusal of the FIR, it appears that on the date of the incident, the present appellant-accused entered the room of the informant, hugged her and also kissed her on the cheek. However, there are no allegations that the appellant-accused abused the victim by referring to her caste in public view. 04. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in the crime. Further, as per the contents of the FIR, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and (ii) of the Atrocities Act are not made out and, therefore, no bar is created under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act against enlarging the appellant-accused on anticipatory bail. 05. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another - (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1886) and Karuppudayar vs. State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy and others - (AIR 2025 SC 705). 06. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the prosecution has filed reply and strongly opposed the appeal on the ground that the appellant, who is a member 6.apeal.221.26 3/5 of a community other than the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community, with an intention to molest the victim, used criminal force to outrage her modesty and to harass her sexually. Therefore, on 27/04/2026, the learned trial Court passed an order and rightly rejected the application. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 07. The learned Counsel appointed for respondent No.2-victim adopted the arguments advanced by the learned A.P.P. 08. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the parties, I have gone through the record. Upon perusal of the contents of the FIR, it appears that respondent No.2-victim was occupying a room on a rental basis in the house of the appellant. The appellant allegedly approached the victim under the pretext of colouring her rented room. Thereafter, the appellant allegedly outraged the modesty of respondent No.2 by embracing her and kissing her on the neck and cheek. Apart from the said act, the appellant also allegedly posted such messages on the WhatsApp of the victim, to which the victim gave a negative reply. The appellant-accused allegedly sent another message and tendered apology. 09. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the WhatsApp chat between the appellant and respondent No.2 and, upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. The FIR does not disclose that the appellant hurled casteist slurs at respondent No.2-victim in a 6.apeal.221.26 4/5 public place or that he was aware of the caste of respondent No.2. 10. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kiran vs. Rajkumar and Karuppudayar vs. State (cited supra), no bar is created under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act against enlarging the appellant on anticipatory bail. Therefore, on 30/04/2026, this Court passed an order and enlarged the appellant-accused on pre-arrest bail on certain terms and conditions. 11. In view of the above discussion, considering the nature of the crime, it would be just and proper to continue the interim order dated 30/04/2026 during the pendency of the trial. Hence, the following order is passed: O R D E R i. The criminal appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 27/04/2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Bail Application No.87/2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The interim order granted on 30/04/2026 shall continue during the pendency of the trial on the same terms and conditions, except condition Nos.(v) and (vii). iv. The appellant shall regularly appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date, unless exempted from personal appearance by the learned trial Court. 6.apeal.221.26 5/5 v. The appellant shall not contact respondent No.2-victim, either personally or through social media or mobile phone. He shall not issue any threat to the victim or any of the witnesses in any manner whatsoever. vi. Any breach of the aforesaid conditions shall be a ground for revocation of bail. vii. The professional fees of the learned Counsel appointed for respondent No.2 shall be quantified and paid as per rules. (Y.G. Khobragade, J.) *sandesh Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 14:40:58