908-apeal-194-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2026 Mukesh D. Gangurde …Appellant V/s. Vilas D. Pagar & Anr. ...Respondents. ………….. Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate i/by. Mr. Akshay Bankapur for the Appellant. Mr. Sachin Gite for Respondent No.1. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State. PSI R.C. Thoke, Sarkarwada Police Station is present. ………….. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 06.08.2026. P.C. : 1. This appeal under Section 14A of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act takes exception to the order dated 20th December 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nashik below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 2218 of 2025. 2. The appellant herein is a 8rst informant in Crime No. 306 of 2025 registered at Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik city for the o:ences punishable under Sections 351(2), 351(3) & 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act. 3. By the order impugned, the learned Sessions Court has allowed the application 8led by the respondent No.1, who is accused in the aforesaid crime and granted him anticipatory bail. Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3 DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Digitally signed by DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date: 2026.08.06 19:13:21 +0530 908-apeal-194-26.odt 4. I have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned APP for the respondent No.2/State. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Sessions Court has allowed the application for anticipatory bail on the ground of delay in lodging the report. It is submitted that on the very same day of incident, the report was lodged with Sarkarwada Police Station. It is submitted that the said report along with other documents was 8led before the Sessions Court. It is submitted that the Sessions Court has not at all considered the said documents. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court has not considered the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST to entertain the anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that the impugned order therefore needs to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the prosecution has already 8led the charge-sheet in the matter and thus now there is no need of custodial interrogation. It is submitted that considering the said fact the present appeal may not be entertained. 7. I have perused the impugned order. It appears that to oppose the anticipatory bail application 8led by respondent No.1 certain documents were 8led by the appellant before the Sessions Dinesh S. Sherla 2/3 908-apeal-194-26.odt Court, including the report lodged on the date of incident. However, the learned Sessions Court has not at all considered the said documents. Apart from it, the learned Sessions Court has also not recorded any 8nding as to whether the bar contained under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is attracted or not. In that view of the matter, the order impugned cannot be allowed to stand. In the result, the following order is passed : O R D E R i) The Appeal is partly allowed. ii) The order impugned is set aside. iii) The Sessions Court shall decide Criminal Bail Application No. 2218 of 2025 8led by the respondent No.1 herein for anticipatory bail afresh on its own merits. iv) The appellant and respondent No.1 shall appear before the Sessions Court on 12th August 2026 at 11.00 am. v) The Sessions Court shall endeavour to decide the application within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of the parties, i.e., on 12th August 2026. vi) Till the decision of the application, the respondent No.1 herein shall not be arrested. 6. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] Dinesh S. Sherla 3/3