Criminal Law-- Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-- Sections 3(I)(r), 3(l)(s), 14A and 18 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860-- Sections 354A, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Section 438-- Complaint under provisions of IPC and under provisions of SC/ST Act registered-- Appellants/accused filed an appeal for pre-arrest bail-- Respondent no.3/complainant belonged to hindu Mahar community which is in SC category-- Respondent no.3/complainant got married with a person who was Hindu Maratha which is non schduled cast out of love affairs with him-- Appellant/accused no.1 along with other appellants came to the house of complainant and appellant no.1 torned the dress of complainant and outraged modesty and kicked on her stomach-- Use of abusive language against the caste of complaiant-- Utterance of abusive words on caste in front of house of complainant within public view-- Incident occurred in public view--Reliance placed on case of Kiran (Supra)-- Bar u/s 18 of SC/ST Act to invoke provisions u/s 438 of CRPC if accused have committed an offence under SC/ST Atrocities Act in public view-- Defense of appellants/accused cannot be considered at the initial stage while deciding anticipatory bail application-- Pre-arrest bail denied-- Appeal Dismissed
Para-- 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 84
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 604 of 2024
Date of Decision: 2026-01-22
Case Title: The Issue of whether the appellants should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations under the SC/ST Act and other offences, considering the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and the merits of the prosecution case
Before Judge: Y. G. Khobragade, J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-AUG:2613
Advocate(s): Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for the Appellants, Mr. R. D. Raut, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. A. D. Ostwal, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
Appellant: Rahul Baban Zaware, Sandip Laxman Choudhari, Dipak Dnyandev Lanke
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra, The Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar, X. Y. Z. (informant)
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail application in a case involving allegations of caste-based atrocities, assault, and other offences
Remedy Sought: Appellants seeking anticipatory bail after their bail application was rejected by the Special Court
Filing Reason: Appellants challenged the order dated 01.07.2024 rejecting their pre-arrest bail application in Criminal Bail Application No. 811 of 2024
Previous Decisions: Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court under the Atrocities Act rejected anticipatory bail application on 01.07.2024
Issues: Whether the appellants should be granted anticipatory bail considering the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act Whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case for offences under the SC/ST Act, particularly regarding knowledge of victim's caste Whether the FIR appears to be a counterblast to another FIR lodged by appellant No. 1
Submissions/Arguments: Appellants were falsely implicated and not present at the spot of incident -- Appellant No. 1 had lodged a separate FIR (No. 0414 of 2024) against informant's husband for an incident at the same time -- Timing discrepancy between alleged incident (11:30 AM-12:00 PM) and appellant No. 1's hospitalization (12:30 PM) -- FIR lacks positive assertion that appellants had knowledge of informant's caste -- Mere abuse with intention to insult without caste knowledge does not constitute offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act -- FIR appears to be counterblast to appellant No. 1's FIR
Ratio Decidendi: For offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, specific knowledge of victim's caste is essential -- Mere abuse with intention to insult without such knowledge does not attract Section 3 -- When FIR lacks positive assertion of caste knowledge and appears to be counterblast with timing discrepancies, bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act does not apply -- Courts must evaluate prima facie case for bail purposes considering all circumstances
Judgment Excerpts: The appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -- The FIR No.0698 of 2024 lodged by respondent No.3 is counterblast to the FIR No.0414 of 2024 lodged by the present appellant No.1 -- No positive assertion given in the FIR that the appellants/accused are having knowledge about the caste of respondent No.3 / informant -- Merely with an intention to insult, abused on her caste does not constitute the offence -- Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act does not create to enlarge the present appellants on anticipatory bail
Procedural History: Crime No. 0698 of 2024 registered on 07.06.2024 -- Criminal Bail Application No. 811 of 2024 filed before Special Court -- Bail application rejected on 01.07.2024 -- Criminal Appeal No. 604 of 2024 filed in High Court on 22.01.2026 -- Appeal allowed and anticipatory bail granted
