apeal379.2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2026 APPELLANTS :- 1. Sheikh Mahemud @ Mohammad Sheikh Baba, Aged 63 years, Occu: Daily Wage Worker, R/o Gabi Pura, Risod, Tq. Risod, Dist. Washim. 2. Nasim Bi Sheikh Maqsood, Aged 35 years, Occu: Daily Wage Worker, R/o Gabi Pura, Risod, Tq. Risod, Dist. Washim. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Risod, Tq. Risod, Dist. Washim. 2. Usha Vinod Bhalerao, Aged about 36 years, R/o c/o Ekta Nagar, Risod, Tq. Risod, Dist. Washim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. P.R. Agrawal, counsel for appellants. Mr. G.S. Umale, APP for respondent No.1. Mr. Abhinav Vyas, counsel a/w Mr. Nachiket Bade, counsel for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE J. DATE : 08 / 10 /2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 2026:BHC-NAG:13773 apeal379.2026.odt 2 1. Admit. Heard finally with consent of both the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1989’), the appellants are challenging the order dated 20/06/2026 passed below Exhibit-13 in Special Atrocity Case No. 26/2026 by the learned District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, whereby declined to enlarge the appellants/accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 118 of 2026 registered on 29/01/2026 with Risod Police Station, District Washim for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR on 29/01/2026, alleging that on 28/01/2026, when she and her sisters came out of the Court premises after attending the court proceedings, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 approached her and threatened her with dire consequences if she apeal379.2026.odt 3 did not withdraw the case/FIR registered vide Crime No. 997/2025. Learned counsel further submits that the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained. It is contended that the alleged incident does not satisfy the requirement of an offence having been committed within public view, as contemplated under the Act of 1989. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 is not attracted, and the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court rejected the application without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on the following cases:- (a) Sopan Krushan Wahanmane Vs State of Maharashtra and another decided by the Principal Seat on 27/09/2019. in Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2018. (b) Swaran Singh and others Vs State through Standing Counsel and another, reported in 2008 (8) SCC 435 (c) Deepankar Vishwas Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2025 ALL MR(Cri) 65. (d) Virendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, reported in ALL MR (Cri) (JS) 196. (e) Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2005(3) MhLJ 368. apeal379.2026.odt 4 (f) Daya Bhatnagar and others Vs State, decided on 17/01/2004 by the High Court of Delhi. (g) Balu B.Galande Vs State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2006(3) ALL Mr (Cri) 3197, In the aforesaid decisions, the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered the meaning and scope of the expressions “public place” and within public view” in the context of offences under the Act of 1989 5. Learned counsel also places reliance on the decision of Hitesh Verma Vs State of Uttarkhand and others [MANU /SC/ 0843/2020], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered its earlier decision in the case of Swaran Singh and others referred (supra). It was held that where an offence is committed outside the building, for instance, in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. 6. Per contra, the learned APP as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 strongly opposed the appeal.. 7. Learned APP submits that, as per the allegations in the apeal379.2026.odt 5 FIR, on 28/01/2026, when respondent No. 2 and her sister were standing on the road after attending the court proceedings, the appellants approached them and abused respondent No. 2 in filthy language and by referring to her caste. It is contended that the alleged incident occurred on a public road within public view. Therefore, in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the appellants are not entitled to anticipatory bail. 8. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both sides, I have gone through the record. It is a matter of record that, on 29/01/2026 at about 16:46 hours, respondent No. 2 approached Risod Police Station and lodged a report, on the basis of which Crime No. 118/2026 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989. As per the contents of the FIR, it prima-facie appears that the respondent No.2 already lodged an FIR No. 997 of 2025 against present appellants with Risod Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 137 (2), 87, 78(1), 352, 351(2), 64(1), 64(2), (d) of Bhartiaya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and under Section 3(1), (w),(i)(ii), 2(5) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 apeal379.2026.odt 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellants have not denied the fact of registration of Crime No. 997 of 2025 against them. 9. It is further appears from the record that the appellants also attended the said Court proceedings on 28/01/2026 in connection with the aforesaid crime. Respondent No. 2 has alleged that she, along with her sister, also attended the said proceedings and that, after coming out of the Court, they reached the road at about 12:00 noon. At that time, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly approached respondent No. 2 and threatened her with dire consequences if she did not withdraw the pending case. It is further alleged that appellant No. 1 abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. The FIR also alleges that appellant No. 1 took out a weapon from his waist, pointed it towards respondent No. 2's neck and threatened to kill her. It is further alleged that the appellants abused respondent No. 2 by referring to her caste. The place of occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, is a road where respondent No. 2 and her sister had reached after attending the court proceedings. The principal question, therefore, is whether the alleged caste-based abuse took place within public view so as to attract the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. apeal379.2026.odt 7 10. In the case of Kiran Vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another [2025 Supreme (SC) 1294] and in case of Karuppudayar Vs State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalguid Trichy and others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2015], the issue concerning caste-based abuse within public view and the applicability of the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, was considered. Similarly, in case in hand, the specific allegation against the appellants is that they abused respondent No. 2 by referring to her caste on a public road after she and her sister had come out of the Court premises upon attending the court proceedings. Thus, at this stage, the allegations in the FIR indicate that the incident allegedly occurred at a place within public view. The learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 20/06/2026, considered the allegations in the FIR and the legal position emerging from the decisions relied upon before it. It concluded that the alleged caste-based abuse occurred within public view and, consequently, that the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 was attracted. 11. Having regard to the allegations in the FIR, the nature and place of the alleged incident, and the legal position governing the applicability of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, I find no substantial ground to interfere with the impugned order. apeal379.2026.odt 8 Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The criminal appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (JUDGE.) rkn Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 14/10/2026 12:32:25