criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2026 APPELLANTS (Org. Accused) :- 1) Kisan s/o Sukhdeo Shirale, Aged 60 years, Occu: Agriculturist. 2) Shivaji s/o Kisan Shirale, Aged 33 years, Occu: Agriculturist, Both R/o Village Shelud, Post Sawna, Taluka Chikhali, District Buldana- 443201 ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Chikhali, Tahsil Chikhali, District Buldana. (Org. Complainant) 2) Ku. Pratiksha d/o Ramesh Salve, Aged 23 years, Occu: Service, R/o Shelgaon Jahangir, Chikhali, Tahsil Chikhali, District Buldana. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. K.P. Sadavarte, counsel for appellants. Mr. H.D. Dubey, APP for respondent/State Mr. S.S. Karanjkar, counsel for respondent No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE J. DATE OF RESERVE : 04/09/2026 DATE OF DECISION : 08/09/2026 2026:BHC-NAG:11868 criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 2 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants take exception to the order dated 16/07/2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Criminal (Anticipatory) Bail Application No.198/2026, thereby declined to enlarge the appellant Nos.1 and 2 on anticipatory bail. However, the learned Trial Court enlarged the other two accused namely; Accused No.3 - Sunil @ Sham Kisan Shirale and accused No.4 – Jijabai Kisan Shirale in connection with Crime No.572/2026 registered with Chikhli Police Station, Dist. Buldana for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) (va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that on criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 3 30/06/2026 FIR No.0572 of 2026 was registered against the present appellants / accused and others on the basis of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2. As per contents of FIR there is existence of a dispute in civil nature and of proceedings on account of an agricultural field. So also, on 26/06/2026, the present appellants/accused assaulted the mother of respondent No.2/informant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further canvassed that, though respondent No.2/informant alleged in FIR that, on 30/06/2026 at about 11.30 am, when she and her mother were present in field Gut No. 85, at that time, present appellants/accused and other accused had entered in her field, and all of them abused her mother on her caste and assaulted her mother with a stick. However, allegations made in the FIR, do not show that the said incident of casteist slur occurred within the public view as provided under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, no bar is created to enlarge the appellant/accused on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. However, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 4 order and declined to release the appellants/accused on pre-arrest bail, despite holding the existence of cyclostyle allegations against all the applicants that, they have abused informant and her mother by saying that “egkjs] /ksMxs] tkLr ektys** Hence, abusing words in the name of caste is not sufficient to attract the embargo of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and bad in-law and hence prayed for quashed and set aside. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the following cases: a] Balasaheb s/o Baban Balode vs State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2024 with Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2024 decided on 27/03/2025 [Aurangabad Bench] b] Vijay s/o Vitthalrao Bonde Vs State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2026 ALL MR (Cri) 2212 c] Ibrahim Dadabhai Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2026 ALL MR(Cri) 2311 d] Ashwin Govardhan Barge Vs State of Maharashtra and others decided on 09/04/2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2026 [ Aurangabad Bench] e] Prabhakar Tewari Vs State of Uttar Prardesh and another [AIROnline 2020 SC 96] criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 5 8. Per contra, prosecution has filed its reply and strongly opposed the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/informant has filed an affidavit-in-reply and reiterated the same contentions. 10. According to respondent No.2/informant as well as the prosecution, the contents of the FIR itself suggest that the accused persons assaulted the informant’s mother with a wooden stick and an iron rod on the ground that the informant and her family lodged the report against them. So also, the appellant No.2 – Shivaji s/o Sukhdeo Shirale, had pulled Saree of respondent No.2 and issued threat to commit rape on her. So also, the accused persons abused her and her mother on her caste. Therefore, considering the nature of complaint as well as past criminal antecedents of appellants, no grounds have been set out to enlarge the appellants/accused on bail. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Needless to say that, on 30/06/2026, the informant / respondent No.2 lodged an FIR with Chikhli Police Station, alleging that on 30/06/2026 at about 11.30 a.m. when informant and her mother were present in her field bearing Gut No. 85 and criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 6 were doing agricultural operations, at that time present appellants/accused namely (1)Kisan Sukhdev Shirale and (2) Shivaji Kisan Shirale along with other accused namely (3) Sunil Kisan Shirale and (4) Jijabai Kisan Shirale, who have been enlarged on bail, visited the said field and abused the respondent No.2 and her mother in filthy language, on the ground that as to why they visited the field and when informant/respondent No.2 and her mother, tried to give understanding to the appellants/accused, at that time all the accused persons abused the informant and her mother on her caste. So also, the appellant/ accused No.1 assaulted the mother of respondent No.2 on her head and the appellant No.2/Shivaji Kisan Shirale assaulted with iron rod on her fingers, hand, legs and knee, due to which the mother of informant sustained injuries. 12. No doubt, the prosecution brought material on record to show that five to six crimes are registered as against the applicant No.2 Shivaji Kisan Shirale, at Chikhali Police Station, including the Prohibitory order under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Vide NCR No. 1092, NCR 377/2026, Crime No. 560 of 2026, Preventive Proceedings No. 75/2026, Crime No.305/2021 and Crime No.459/2018. However, in all these crimes, appellant/accused No.2 has already been released on bail. criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 7 Respondent No.2/informant has produced the copies of some reports lodged against the present appellants. However, all the reports appear to be in respect of the dispute on account of the field. 13. On perusal of the FIR, which is the subject matter of present appeal, clearly depicts that the respondent No.2/informant had alleged about castiest-slur at the hands of the accused person in chorus in field. The FIR does not disclose that the said incident of catiest-slur was viewed by public. The case diary produced by the prosecution also does not reflect that any other third persons have witnessed the incident of castiest-slur in the field bearing survey No. 85 of Shelgaon Jahagir.. 14. As per the contents of the FIR the castiest slur at the hands of the accused appears to have been given in chorus only by calling them on their caste. However, the FIR does not show that it was within the public view. No doubt, it has been alleged that the accused persons assaulted the informant/respondent no.3 and his associates with wooden log. Therefore, considering the law laid down in the case of Pratik and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2020 (3) Bom CR (Cri.) 238, wherein, it has been observed that, as per the contents of FIR all seven accused persons criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 8 stated to have abused the informant in chorus which is unrealistic. Abuses or utterances cannot be in chorus as two men or women do not think alike at the same time. What is going on in the mind of another person cannot be revealed and, therefore, especially the abuses cannot be in chorus, under these circumstances the accused persons were released on anticipatory bail. 15. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union of India and Ors; (2020) 4 SCC 727, wherein it has been held that if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply. 16. In the case of Karuppudayar V/s. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Ors.; AIR 2025 SC 705, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 10 as under: 10. The term "any place within public view" initially came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran Singh and others v. State through Standing Counsel and another. This Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarkhand and another referred to Swaran Singh(supra) and reiterated the legal position as under: "14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 9 State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. 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. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."] . The Court held as under : 28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 10 expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies." (emphasis in original)" 17. In the case of Kiran V/s. Rajkumar J. Jain; AIR 2025 SC 4083, wherein it has been held that Section 18 expressly excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., if the incident has occurred within public view. In other words, in relation to any case involving arrest of a person who is facing the accusation about committing offence under this Act, protection of Section 438 Cr.PC. would not be available. The legislature has taken away the benefit of anticipatory bail in respect of the arrest for the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act. The bar in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would operate. 18. Needless so say that, in the case of Prabhakar Tewari (supra) the appellant/accused was not dis-entitled to be released on bail, though the offence alleged was grave and serious and several criminal cases were pending against accused. Considering the recitals of the FIR, the case diary, as well as cases cited supra, no bar is created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 to enlarge the appellant/accused on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 11 Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. On 16/07/2026, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana passed the impugned order in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 198 of 2026 and declined to enlarge the present appellant Nos. 1 and 2 on anticipatory bail. The said order appears to be unjustifiable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER a] Criminal Appeal is allowed. b] The order dated 16/07/2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Bail Application No. 198 of 2026, is hereby quashed and set aside. c] In the event of arrest,the appellants –(1) Kisan s/o Sukhdeo Shirale, (2) Shivaji s/o Kisan Shirale, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.572/2026 registered with Chikhli Police Station, Buldana for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1),118(2),115(2),3(5),351(2), 351(3), 352, 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) criminal appeal 377.2026.odt 12 (va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties in the like amount. d] The appellants/accused shall attend the Investigating Officer on every Monday in between 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and shall cooperate with the investigation. e] The appellants shall not issue any threat or inducement to any prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with any evidence. f] The appellants shall furnish their mobile numbers, as well as mobile numbers of two close relatives before the Investigating Officer. g] Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J) rkn. Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/09/2026 16:51:49