11.apeal.445.26.jud 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.445 OF 2026 Appellant : Sachin s/o Shankarrao Chirde Aged 41 years, Occ. : Service, R/o Juni Wasti, Baripura, Badnera, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. – Versus – Respondents : 1. State of Maharashtra, (Through P.S.O., P.S. Nandgaon Khandeshwar, Dist. Amravati) 2. Devidas Parasram Gadling, Aged 70 years, Occ.: Servcie, R/o. Prabhu Colony, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr. G.A. Kunte, Advocate for the Appellant. Mrs. H.S. Dhande, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Nilesh Tikar, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 1 st OCTOBER, 2 026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 01. Admit. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused as well as the learned A.P.P. for the prosecution/State and the learned Counsel appointed for respondent No.2/victim. 02. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 2026:BHC-NAG:13246 11.apeal.445.26.jud 2/4 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act” for short), the appellant takes exception to the order dated 17/08/2026 passed by the learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Criminal Bail Application No.762 of 2026, whereby the learned Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant-accused in connection with Crime No.190 of 2026 registered with Nandgaon Khandeshwar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. 03. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the record. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that respondent No.2 is a retired employee of the Amravati District Cooperative Bank and is cultivating the land bearing Gut Nos.8 and 3, on which a well and a motor pump are installed. As there was no electricity supply to the motor pump, respondent No.2 approached the present appellant/accused, who was working as a Lineman with the MSEDCL Sub-Station, Rajura. Respondent No.2 further alleged that he also met the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Chandur Railway, who assured him of the supply of electricity. However, no electricity was supplied till 25/07/2026. Therefore, the informant, along with his two labourers, visited the present appellant/accused. At that time, the present appellant/accused allegedly used filthy language and abused respondent No.2 by referring to his caste. However, the FIR does not disclose that the alleged casteist slurs uttered by the present appellant against respondent No.2 were made within the “public view”. 11.apeal.445.26.jud 3/4 04. In view of the judgment in the case of Karuppudayar Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police - [2025 SCC OnLine SC 215], as well as the law laid down in the cases of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another - [(2020) 10 SCC 710], Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - [2023 SCC OnLine SC 668] and Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Vijraj Jain and another - [2025 Supreme (SC) 1294], I am of the view that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act are not made out. Consequently, Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not create a bar against enlarging the appellant/accused on anticipatory bail. 05. On 27/08/2026, this Court passed a reasoned order and enlarged the appellant on ad interim anticipatory bail on certain terms and conditions. The prosecution and respondent No.2 have not raised any grievance regarding misuse of the liberty granted to the appellant or any obstruction caused by him during the course of investigation. It is a matter of record that, after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. Therefore, considering the nature of the offence, it would be just and proper to continue the interim order dated 27/08/2026 till conclusion of the trial on the same terms and conditions. 06. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed: O R D E R i. The criminal appeal is allowed. 11.apeal.445.26.jud 4/4 ii. The impugned order dated 17/08/2026 passed by the learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Criminal Bail Application No.762/2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The interim order granted on 27/08/2026 shall continue during the pendency of the trial on the same terms and conditions, except condition No.(d). iv. The appellant shall regularly appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date, unless he is exempted from personal appearance by the learned trial Court. v. The appellant 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: 06/10/2026 11:08:04