IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 930 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2026 SHANKAR MADHUKAR GUNJAL VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS ... Mr. A. G. Kale h/f Mr. Vaibhav U. Pawar, Advocate for Appellant Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State Ms. Deepali S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3 (appointed) CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting application for pre-arrest bail filed by the present appellant. 2. Appellant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 184/2026, registered with Sonpeth Police Station, District Parbhani fo the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The First Information Report, recorded on 17.05.2026, depicts that the incident occurred on 16.05.2026 at about 8.45 p.m. There is an allegation 930 APEAL 573.2026.odt 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:41569 against the present appellant that he abused the informant by referring to his caste and also assaulted him with fist and kick blows. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the incident in question did not occur in public view and, as such, the embargo created by Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has no application to the present case. To support his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2020 SC 5584. 5. Learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for the informant opposed the grant of protection to the appellant by referring to the allegations against him in the First Information Report. Learned APP drew the attention of the Court to the statement of Bharat Gunjal, who claims to have witnessed the occurrence. It is thus his contention that the incident occurred in the presence of an independent person and, as such, the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have application to the present case. 6. Prima facie, perusal of the First Information Report indicates that the allegation with regard to the abuses referring to the caste is attributed only to the present appellant and not to the co-accused. The said version of the informant does not find support from the statement of the independent witness. As such, a doubt is created with regard to the occurrence of the 930 APEAL 573.2026.odt 2 of 3 incident in the manner in which it has been alleged by the informant. Having regard to these facts it cannot be said that prima facie offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out to apply embargo of Section 18 of the Act thereof. Similarly this is not case wherein custodial interrogation of appellant is warranted. Hence, order. ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest of appellant in connection with Crime No. 184/2026, registered with Sonpeth Police Station, District Parbhani fo the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (vi) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. (vii) Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. 7. The fee of the appointed counsel is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 930 APEAL 573.2026.odt 3 of 3