1 9-J-APPEAL-113-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2026 APPELLANTS : 1. Rahul S/o Prakash Maind, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Driver, 2. Pratibha W/o Rahul Maind, Aged 35 Major, Occ. Household, 3. Sau. Rekha W/o Prakash Maind, Aged 60 years, Occ. Household, 4. Prashant S/o. Prakash Maind, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Labour, 5. Ishu S/o Bhagatsingh Rathi, Aged about Major, Occ. Business. All R/o Valmik Nagar, Bramhapuri, Tah. Bramhapuri, Distt. Chandrapur. V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Police Station Officer, Police Station Bramhapuri. 2.Kailash S/o. Dildar Kamble, Aged about Major, Occ. Not known, R/o Valmiki Nagar, Bramhapuri, Tq. Bramhapuri, Distt. Chandrapur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A. R. Wagh, Advocate for appellants. Mrs. H. S. Dhande, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Ms. Sakshi Pathak, Advocate (Appointed) for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 05/10/2026. 2026:BHC-NAG:13262 2 9-J-APPEAL-113-2026.doc ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at the stage of admission. 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 appellants / accused takes exception to the order dated 14/02/2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.55/2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, thereby declining to enlarge the appellants / accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.18/2026 registered with Bramhapuri Police Station, Dist. Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS,2023) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ ST Act. 3. On the face of record, it appears that the present appellant No.1 – Rahul Prakash Maind had lodged a cross report against the respondent No.1, who is the informant in FIR No.18/2026. The appellants / accused were apprehended in 3 9-J-APPEAL-113-2026.doc connection with Crime No.18/2026 registered on 17/01/2026 with Bramhapuri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 352, 115, 118(1) of the BNS, 2023. 4. The Investigating Officer recorded supplementary statements of respondent No.1 as well as other witnesses, wherein they disclosed that the alleged casteist slurs uttered by the appellants. Therefore, the Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act were added in Crime No.18/2026. 5. Needless to say that while lodging FIR No.18/2026, the respondent No.2 / informant has only alleged about the occurrence of the incident on 16/01/2026 at about 10.00 p.m. when the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2 raised a quarrel with the respondent No.2 on account of recording of video and appellants / accused No.1 – Rahul Prakash Maind assaulted him with a stone on his head. 6. Further, the appellant No.2 – Pratibha w/o Rahul Maind abused him in filthy language. So also, Akash Maind and Ishu Rathi, brothers of the present appellants / accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 also visited the spot and assaulted him with fist and blows. When Kunal, the son of respondent No.2 tried to intervene in the 4 9-J-APPEAL-113-2026.doc quarrel, at that time, the accused No.1 – Rahul Prakash Maind assaulted on the back of his son with Sattur. Initially, the respondent No.2 / informant did not disclose any casteist slur uttered against him by the appellants in public view. 7. Though the prosecution has filed a reply and made a statement that, during the course of investigation, the supplementary statements of the respondent No.2 / informant as well as other witnesses were recorded, wherein the respondent No.2/informant and other witnesses disclosed alleged casteist slur uttered by the appellants in public view. However, no such statements have been brought on record. Even otherwise, it appears that the subsequent disclosure of fact about castiest slurs while recording the supplementary statements may be an afterthought. 8. Therefore, I am of the view that 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 to enlarge the appellants / accused on anticipatory bail. 9. On 06/03/2026, this Court passed an order and enlarged the appellants / accused Nos.2 to 5 i.e. 2] Pratibha w/o 5 9-J-APPEAL-113-2026.doc Rahul Maind, 3] Sau. Rekha w/o Prakash Maind, 4] Prashant s/o Prakash Maind and 5] Ishu s/o Bhagatsingh Rathi on bail on certain terms and conditions. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14/02/2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.55/2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. Vide order dated 06/03/2026, the appellants / accused Nos.2 to 5 i.e. 2] Pratibha w/o Rahul Maind, 3] Sau. Rekha w/o Prakash Maind, 4] Prashant s/o Prakash Maind and 5] Ishu s/o Bhagatsingh Rathi have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.18/2026 registered with Bramhapuri Police Station, Dist. Chandrapur, on certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, the said interim order is hereby confirmed. 12. The fees of the appointed counsel for respondent No.2 be quantified and paid as per the rules. [JUDGE] Choulwar Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/10/2026 14:59:52