criminal appeal 394.2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2026 APPELLANTS (Original applicant No.1) :- 1) MR. YUVRAJ s/o NATHURAM BARAI, Aged-57 years, Occupation- Civil Contractor, resident of Shivaji Chowk, Rajendra Ward, Mohadi, Tahsil-Mohadi, District -Bhandara (Maharashtra State) Aadhar No. 8258 3560 8360 (Original applicant No.2) 2) MR. YUGAL S/O YUVRAJ BARAI, Aged 24 years, Occu: Student (MBBS), resident of Shivaji Chowk, Rajendra Ward, Mohadi, Tahsil- Mohadi, District – Bhandara (Maharashtra State) Aadhar No.4750 4628 9552 ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS (Original non-applicant) :- 1) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Through Officer In-charge, Mohadi Police Station, Mohadi, Bhandara, Tahsil- Mohadi & District – Bhandara (Maharashtra State) (Original Complainant) 2) SHRI SANJAY S/O BAKARAM WASNIK, COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 303/2026, POLICE STATION – MOHADI, Tahsil- Mohadi & District -Bhandara (Maharashtra State) R/o Takla, Mohadi, Tahsil- Mohadi & District – Bhandara (Maharashtra State) Mobile No. 9767442063 2026:BHC-NAG:12215 criminal appeal 394.2026.odt 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms Ayushi Dangare Tripathi, counsel for appellants. Mr. G.S. Umale, APP for respondent/State Ms. Anuprita Mishrikotkar, counsel (appointed) for respondent No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE J. DATE : 10/09/2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short, “SC/ST Act”), the appellants take exception to the order dated 29/07/2026 passed in Misc. Criminal Application (Bail) No.216/2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, thereby declined to enlarge the appellants/ accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.303/2026 registered with Mohadi Police Station, Dist. Bhandara, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 352, 351(2), 115 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed criminal appeal 394.2026.odt 3 that, respondent No.2/informant lodged the FIR No. 303 of 2026 with Police Station Mohadi, District Bhandara, alleging that on 27/05/2026, at about 5.35 p.m., when he was near his two wheeler in the parking area, both the appellants/accused abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with fists and blows. So also, the appellants/accused abused him by referring to his caste and also extended a threat to his life. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, the FIR does not disclose that the alleged caste-based abuse was made in a place within public view. According to the learned counsel, although the alleged incident occurred in a parking area, the FIR does not disclose the presence of any independent person who witnessed the alleged caste-based abuse. Therefore, the essential ingredients for constituting an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are prima-facie absent. Consequently, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would not operate against the appellants for seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. So also, the appellants/accused have cooperated with the Investigating Officer and that there is every possibility of filing of the charge-sheet within a short period. Therefore, their criminal appeal 394.2026.odt 4 custodial interrogation is not required. 7. Per contra, learned APP as well as learned appointed counsel have strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that, as per the contents of the FIR, the incident occurred at a public place, namely, the parking area, which was within public view. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the appellants are not entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail in view of the bar contained in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. 8. Needless to say that, even the contents of the FIR is taken into its face value, it does not appear that, at the time of incident, i.e. 27/05/2026 at about 5.35 p.m. the alleged caste- based abuse was made against respondent No.2 in a place within public view. The FIR does not disclose the presence of any person other than the appellants/accused and respondent No.2 at the spot at the time when the alleged caste-based slur was uttered. The prosecution though filed its reply, nothing has been brought on record to show that the said incident of castiest slur has been viewed by other public who were in the office of this appellants. Mere occurrence of the incident at a public place, by itself, would not be sufficient to establish the requirement of the alleged castiest slur being made in a place within public view. criminal appeal 394.2026.odt 5 9. Therefore, considering the law laid down in the following cases :- (1) Pratik and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2020 (3) Bom CR (Cri.) 238. (2) Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union of India and Ors; (2020) 4 SCC 727 and; (3) Karuppudayar Vs State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Ors.; AIR 2025 SC 705; Kiran Vs Rajkumar J. Jain; AIR 2025 SC 4083. I am of the considered view that the essential ingredients to prima-facie constitute an offence under Section 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act is absent. Consequently, the bar contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would not operate against the appellants. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to consider of their prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. On 06/08/2026, this Court had passed an order enlarging the appellants/accused on ad-interim anticipatory bail on certain terms and conditions. The prosecution has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the present appellants is necessary for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, interim order granted by this Court on 06/08/2026 needs to be continued till conclusion of the trial, on criminal appeal 394.2026.odt 6 the same terms and conditions. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER a) Criminal Appeal is allowed. b) The impugned order dated 29/07/2026 passed in Misc. Criminal Application (Bail) No.216/2026 (Yuvraj Barai and another Vs. State of Maharashtra) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, is hereby quashed and set aside. c) The interim order passed by this Court on 06/08/2026 is hereby confirmed and shall remain in force till conclusion of the trial, on the same terms and conditions. d) Appellant No.1 shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer till filing of the charge-sheet and shall cooperate with the investigation. Appellant No.2 is exempted from appearing before the Investigating Officer, as he is pursuing his studies at B.K.L. Walawalkar Rural Medical College, Kasarwadi, Sawarde, Taluka Chiplun, District Ratnagiri – criminal appeal 394.2026.odt 7 415606. However, appellant No.2 shall cooperate with the investigation and shall remain available as and when his presence is specifically required by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. e) After filing of the charge-sheet, the personal appearance of the appellants before the Investigating Officer shall not be required, unless otherwise directed in accordance with law. f) Appellant No.2 is exempted from appearing before the Investigating Officer, subject to his cooperating with the investigation and remaining available as and when required in accordance with law. g) The fees of the learned appointed counsel be quantified as per rules. h) Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J) rkn. Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2026 18:57:03