1 3-J-APPEAL-261-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2025 APPELLANT : Gopal s/o Prakash Pariskar, Ori. Applicant. Aged about 38 years, Occupation - Business, R/o Chikhli, Tah. Risod, District Washim. V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Risod, Tah. Risod, District – Washim. 2. Vijay S/o Laxman Zunzare, Aged about 36 years, Occupation - Business, R/o In Front of State Bank of India, Risod, Tah. Risod, District – Washim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V. N. Patre, Advocate for appellant. Shri A. J. Gohokar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Shri Bhavin Suchak, Advocate (Appointed) for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 05/10/2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at the stage of admission. 2026:BHC-NAG:13261 2 3-J-APPEAL-261-2025.doc 2. By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), the appellant / accused takes exception to the order dated 16/05/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Bail Application No.122/2025, thereby refusing to enlarge the appellant / accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.296/2025 registered with Rishod Police Station, Dist. Washim for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(1), 296, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) r/w Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Needless to say that Crime No.296/2025 was registered on the basis of FIR lodged by the respondent No.2/informant. 4. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that on 09/04/2025 at about 11.00 a.m. when the respondent No.2 was proceeding from from Risod to Washim, which is at Chikhli subway, at that time, the present appellant / accused stopped his vehicle and pulled the respondent No.2 / informant from his vehicle and assaulted him by slapping, fist and blows. 3 3-J-APPEAL-261-2025.doc 5. The respondent No.2 / informant further alleged that the present appellant / accused demanded repayment of hand loan from him and threatened to kill him, if he fails to refund the said hand loan. Thereafter, the appellant / accused took the respondent No.2 to the Hotel, wherein he threatened the respondent No.2 that either to repay the hand loan or the respondent No.2 would be required to work in the hotel. Thereafter, the appellant / accused took him in white coloured car to his agricultural field and abused him in filthy language. After confining the respondent No.2 / informant in the cattle shed, he directed the respondent No.2 to perform the work in the cattle shed for collecting the buffaloes dung. 6. On perusal of the FIR, it does not suggest that the appellant / accused uttered casteist slurs against the respondent No.2 / informant in public view. Therefore, as per the law laid down in the case of Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors, 2025(2) CGLJ 316 and in the case of Kiran Vrs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another, 2025 AIR (SC) 408 3 , no bar is created under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act to enlarge the appellant / accused on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. (Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023). 4 3-J-APPEAL-261-2025.doc 7. On 09/06/2025, this Court passed the reasoned order and enlarged the appellant / accused on anticipatory bail on certain terms and conditions. There is no allegation that the appellant / accused has misused the liberty granted to him and failed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a statement that after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has already been filed against the appellant / accused. 9. Therefore, considering the nature of offence, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 16/05/2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in Criminal Bail Application No.122/2025 needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :- ORDER i] The appeal is allowed. ii] The impugned order dated 16/05/2025 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.122/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii] The interim order granted on 09/06/2025 shall be in force during the pendency of appeal, except Condition No.2. However, the appellant / accused shall regularly appear before the Trial Court, till culmination of the trial. 5 3-J-APPEAL-261-2025.doc iv] It is made clear that the continuous absence of two days of the appellant / accused shall be ground for revocation of bail. v] The fees of the appointed counsel for respondent No.2 be quantified and paid as per rules. [JUDGE] Choulwar Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/10/2026 14:52:48