5.apeal.210.26.jud 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.210 OF 2026 Appellant (Original Applicant Accused) : Akash Haushilal Gurvekar, Age 32 years, Occupation : Labour, Residence of Ratnapur, Tq. Dharni, Dist. Amravati. – Versus – Respondents : 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Dharni Police Station, Dharni, Tq. Dharni, Dist. Amravati. (Original Complainant) 2. XYZ (Victim) in Crime No.243/2026, Registered with Dharni Police Station, Dharni, Tq. Dharni, Dist. Amravati. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr. D.S. Khushalani, Advocate for the Appellant. Mrs. H.S. Dhande, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mrs. Nisha Gajbhiye-Wasnik, Advocate 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 the present appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the 2026:BHC-NAG:13136 5.apeal.210.26.jud 2/4 Atrocities Act”), the appellant-accused takes exception to the order dated 08/04/2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.113/2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, District Amravati, thereby declining to release the appellant on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.243/2026, registered with Police Station Dharni, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. 03. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, as per the contents of the F.I.R., the appellant-accused did not abuse respondent No.2 in a public place. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act are not made out and, therefore, no bar is created under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act to enlarge the appellant-accused on anticipatory bail. 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). 04. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the prosecution has filed reply and strongly opposed the appeal. She submits that, as per the contents of the F.I.R., the appellant-accused outraged the modesty of respondent No.2/ informant, who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, with such intention and, therefore, the offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act are 5.apeal.210.26.jud 3/4 made out. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. 05. The learned Counsel appointed for respondent No.2/victim supports the submissions canvassed on behalf of the prosecution. 06. Needless to say, Crime No.243/2026 is registered with Dharni Police Station, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. After going through the contents of the F.I.R., it prima facie appears that on the day of the incident, after respondent No.2 saw the accused in a compromising position with her elder sister-in-law, the appellant-accused entered her house and outraged her modesty by holding her hand and pulling her down. No doubt, the appellant and respondent No.2 are residents of one and the same village and, therefore, they are acquainted with each other’s caste. However, the F.I.R. does not disclose any casteist slur having been made by the appellant against respondent No.2 in public view. 07. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kiran vs. Rajkumar and Karuppudayar vs. State (cited supra), on 28/04/2026, this Court passed an order and enlarged the appellant-accused on pre-arrest bail on certain terms and conditions. Therefore, considering the nature of the crime, it would be just and proper to continue the interim order dated 28/04/2026 during the pendency of the trial. 5.apeal.210.26.jud 4/4 08. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed : i. The criminal appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 08/04/2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Criminal Bail Application No.113/2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The interim order granted on 28/04/2026 shall continue during the pendency of the trial on the same terms and conditions, except condition No.5. iv. The appellant shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date. Absence of the appellant continuously for two days shall be a ground for revocation of the bail, unless the trial Court exempts him from personal appearance. v. 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 14:42:51