5.apeal.246.26 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2026 Naresh Vasantrao Hatole vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, P.S. Tamgaon, Taq. Sangrampur, District Buldhana and another =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. G.S. Umale, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mrs. Varsha Warade, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.2. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 19 th AUGUST, 2 026. Heard Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. G.S. Umale, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mrs. Varsha Warade, learned Counsel appointed for respondent No.2. 02. By the present appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('Atrocities Act' for short), the appellant-accused takes exception to the order dated 06/04/2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.125/2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldana, thereby refusing to enlarge the appellant-accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.412/2025 registered with Tamgaon Police Station, District Buldana on 08/12/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(3), 130 and 126(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act. 03. On perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that on 08/12/2025, Crime No.412/2025 came to be registered with Tamgaon Police Station on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No.2, wherein it is alleged that while the informant was proceeding from village Kalkhed to Jalgaon Jamod via Warwat Khanderao on his motorcycle bearing Registration 2026:BHC-NAG:10909 5.apeal.246.26 2/4 No.MH-56/5705 and reached near Sawali T-Point at about 08:30 p.m., the appellant shouted at him and asked him to stop. Hence, he slowed down his motorcycle and, at that time, the appellant came in front of him and asked him to stop. Thereafter, the appellant asked him as to why he had not published his advertisement and assaulted him with an iron rod. Respondent No.2-informant further alleged that when he promised the appellant to return his amount of Rs.2,000/- on the next day morning, the appellant allegedly abused him by referring to his caste. It is further alleged that, at that time, two persons who were proceeding towards village Paturda stopped there and intervened in the quarrel. The informant further alleged that the appellant abused him by referring to his caste in the presence of both the panchas. 04. Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, canvassed that, as per the contents of the F.I.R., the appellant allegedly abused respondent No.2 by referring to his caste in the presence of Shri Ravi Patil and his companion. However, respondent No.2-informant has not specifically asserted in the F.I.R. that any casteist slur was uttered by the appellant by uttering specific words. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, no bar is created to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail. 05. The prosecution has filed its reply and strongly opposed the application. The learned A.P.P. canvassed that respondent No.2 is a journalist and Editor of News 24 Satpuda Channel and is acquainted with the appellant. The appellant had given an amount of Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2 for displaying an advertisement on his news channel. However, no such advertisement was published and when respondent No.2 showed his willingness to return the amount of Rs.2,000/-, the appellant abused him by referring to his caste at Sawali T-Point, which was within public view. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5.apeal.246.26 3/4 06. Needless to say, even if the F.I.R. is taken into consideration, it does not suggest that the Sawali T-Point is located in the vicinity of the public. The F.I.R. also does not suggest that the said incident occurred within public view. It is further submitted that respondent No.2- informant has not specifically worded casteist slur allegedly uttered by the appellant in the presence of the witnesses, namely, Ravi Patil and Shankarrao. Therefore, considering the law laid down in the case of Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and anr. - 2025 AIR(SC) 4083, no bar is created under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act against enlarging the appellant on anticipatory bail. However, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order and declined to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06/04/2026 passed by the learned Trial Court needs to be quashed and set aside. 07. On 12/05/2026, this Court passed an order and enlarged the appellant-accused on ad-interim anticipatory bail on certain terms and conditions. Therefore, considering the nature of the offence as well as the dispute on account of money, it would be just and proper to continue the said order till conclusion of the trial on the same terms and conditions. 08. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow the appeal and proceed to pass the following order: O R D E R i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 06/04/2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.125/2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldana, is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The ad-interim order dated 12/05/2026 passed by this Court shall continue till conclusion of the trial on the same terms and conditions. 5.apeal.246.26 4/4 iv. Professional fees be quantified and paid to the learned Counsel appointed for respondent No.2 as per rules. v. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE *sandesh Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/08/2026 14:35:41