IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 28 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2026 SHRIDHAR BHAGWAT DHAWALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for Appellant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent/State Ms. D. S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (appointed) CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Appellant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 83/2026, registered with Dharashiv Police Station, District Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘BNS’), and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘Atrocities Act’). 2. First Information Report indicates that an incident had occurred on 04.03.2026, in which the present Appellant is said to have abused the Informant over his caste. There is an allegation against the co-accused as well as the present Appellant of causing assault on the Informant and his wife. 28 APEAL 584.2026.odt 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:42797 3. Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging of the First Information Report, as the incident had allegedly occurred on 04.03.2026, whereas the report came to be lodged on 11.03.2026. It is his submission that the incident in question had not occurred in public view and, as such, the provisions of the Atrocities Act have no application to the present case. It is his submission that, considering the dispute between the parties, the possibility of over-implication cannot be ruled out. 4. Learned APP and learned Advocate for the Informant opposed the grant of any relief to the Appellant by referring to the allegations against him in the First Information Report. According to them, the said allegations in the First Information Report get corroboration from the statements of the eye- witnesses. Learned APP referred to the injury certificates on record indicating that the Informant as well as his wife had sustained injuries. According to them, the offence under the Atrocities Act is made out and, as such, considering the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the Appellant is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. 5. Perusal of the First Information Report indicates that there is an allegation against the present Appellant that he abused the Informant over his caste. Though statements of witnesses have been recorded, the said 28 APEAL 584.2026.odt 2 of 4 statements are totally inconsistent with the statement of the Informant. This makes the said allegation doubtful. Insofar as the allegation against the Appellant with regard to assault on the wife of the Informant is concerned, the injury certificate indicates that she sustained a single injury. 6. Prima facie, this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellant that the offence in question had not occurred in a public view and, therefore, the provisions of the Atrocities Act may not get attracted to the present case. Once such a finding is recorded, the bar created under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is not applicable. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and, more particularly, the supplementary statement of the Informant, which creates a possibility of over-implication, the Appellant is entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest of Appellant in connection with Crime No. 83/2026, registered with Dharashiv Police Station, District Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he 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 not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. 28 APEAL 584.2026.odt 3 of 4 (iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (v) He further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. (vi) The fees of the appointed Advocate is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). 7. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 28 APEAL 584.2026.odt 4 of 4