SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
Ramkrishna S/o Maroti Bangar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1028 of 2024
Decided On : 10-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms Rakshanda
Rajan Jaiswal i/b Mr. Praful Bachate, Advocate for the Appellants
Ms Chaitali Chaudhari – Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1 – State
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. V. R. Dhorde, a/w Mr. S. S.
Dudhane, Advocate for Respondent No.2

The court ruled that allegations of caste-based abuse must occur in public view to invoke the bar on anticipatory bail under the Atrocities Act, which was not established in this case.

Headnote:

(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 109, 115(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2) - Anticipatory bail application - Rejection of bail application by Special Court challenged - Allegations of caste-based abuse and threats made against informant - Court found that allegations did not occur in public view, thus bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities Act not applicable - Investigating Officer's report indicated lack of evidence against accused. (Paras 14, 19, 20, 21)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Principles governing grant of anticipatory bail under Atrocities Act - Court must assess whether allegations made are substantiated and whether incident occurred in public view. (Paras 14, 15, 19)

Facts of the case:
The informant alleged that he was abused and threatened by the accused based on his caste, and subsequently assaulted and set on fire. The accused sought anticipatory bail after their application was rejected by the Special Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the alleged abuse did not occur in public view, and the evidence presented was insufficient to substantiate the claims against the accused.

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted an offence under the Atrocities Act and whether the bar on anticipatory bail applied.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not meet the criteria for public view as required under the Atrocities Act, thus allowing the anticipatory bail application.

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

[Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, the learned Senior counsel with Ms Rakshanda Rajan Jaiswal, instructed by Mr. Praful Bachate, the learned counsel for the Appellants, the learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. R. N. Dhorde, the learned Senior counsel instructed by Mr. V. R. Dhorde, along with Mr. S. S. Dudhane, Advocate for Respondent No.2 / victim-informant.

2. By the present Appeal, the Appellants/accused have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and take exception to the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Atrocities), Beed, Below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.1237 of 2024, whereby the prayer for pre-arrest bail was declined in Crime No. 0394 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. In a nutshell, it is the prosecution’s case that, on 11.11.2024, Respondent No.2/informant lodged an oral report with Police Station (Rural), Beed alleging that, from the year 2005 till 2008, he was residing in Hutatma Deorao Magasvargiya Hostel, Bhayala, run by Shri Ramkrishna Bangar, Appellant No.1. He knows the appellant accused No.2 Vijaysingh @ Bala Ramkrishna Bangar and Smt. Satyabhamabai w/o Ramkrishna Bangar, appellant/accused No.3. He belongs to Scheduled Castes community. In the year 2012, the accused No. 1 appointed him on temporary basis on the post of Laboratory Assistant with Adarsh Kanishth Mahavidyalaya, Khalapuri. At that time, he met accused No.1 Ramkrishna Bangar. Respondent No.2 informant further alleged that, in the year 2018, accused No.1 to 3 obtained Rs.4,00,000/- from him, but, subsequently tortured him by raising an additional demand of Rs.6,00,000/- and issued threats that if he fail to pay the said amount, he would be removed from his job. It is further alleged that, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 never paid him salary and whenever he asked for his salary, he was abused on the basis of his caste. The Appellant No.4 is the Headmaster of a school run by the accused Nos. 1 to 3.

4. On 10.11.2024 at about 9.00 a.m., he visited the house of accused No.1 to 3 in village Patoda and requested the Appellant no. 1 for refund of money of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was paid by him to secure the job in presence of accused No.3, Satyabhamabai Bangar and accused No.4 Aabasaheb Bhanudas Gopalghare. But accused No.1 Ramkrishna Bangar, abused him on the basis of his caste, saying

need salary? If you act too smart, we will fire you from your job and will not even pay you). Accused No.1 Ramkrishna Bangar, and his staff members assaulted him and drove him out of the house. Thereafter the accused No.4 Aabasaheb Gopalghare followed him and convinced that he would talk with Accused No.1 about return of money to him, hence, he waited at Patoda for considerable time, but there were no contact with Accused no. 4. Therefore, he gave phone call to the accused No.4 but at that time, the accused No.4 issued him life threat. Then he started to return by an Autorickshaw towards Beed, but at about 8.30 p.m., he alighted from the Autorickshaw near Ghule Petrol Pump. It further alleged that, at that time the accused No.4 Aabasaheb Gopalghare and two other unknown persons came there on motorcycle and took him beside the road and told him that, how he dared to visit at the bungalow of accused No.1 and abused him on his caste. The accused No.4 also told him that, the accused No.1, 2 and 3 directed him to kill him with an intention that he would not enter again at the bungalow of accused no. 1. The other unknown two persons caught hold his hands-legs and laid down him and accused No.4 poured petrol on this person from bottle and set him on fire. Ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top