Section 18 bar on anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act applies only where prima facie offence of caste-based humiliation in public view established; absent specific allegations against family members, bail granted despite incident involvement.

JUDGMENT :

Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

1. Heard Mr. Warma, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Chate, the learned APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 / informant.

2. By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants/accused takes exception to the order dated 10.12.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Amalner. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge, Amalner declined to enlarge the appellants/accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.494 of 2025, registered with Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon, on 25.11.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 115(2), 296, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Having regard to submissions canvassed on behalf of the respective parties, I have gone through the record. It is a matter of record that, on 25.11.2025, respondent No.3 / informant lodged an oral report alleging that, she is residing with her husband and son. She is doing labour work. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accused No.1 Yogitabai w/o Vinod Patil, 2 Vinod Bhagwat Patil, 3 Bhushan Vinod Patil and Yogesh Vinod Patil, are residing in front of her house. The appellant No.1 / accused No.1 is the member of Grampanchayat. All the accused are well aware that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. On 12.11.2025 at about 5.00 p.m., she was shouting her son Raj Bagul on account of leakage of water tap and she told her son as to why he did not notice leakage of water tap. At that time, the accused No.1 Yogita Patil, her husband accused No.2 Vinod Patil and both of their sons who were fetching water from said tap and accused No.1 doubted that, the informant taunting her, therefore, all the accused persons abused her in filthy language. Accused No.2 Vinod abused her on her caste by saying that, “pkaHkkjhu jkaM rqyk tkLr >kys vkgs”. Thereafter, all the accused persons rushed to her person and assaulted her with fist and blows. When her husband and son rushed to save her, all the accused persons abused the informant, her husband and son.

4. The Informant/Respondent no. 3 alleged that, all the accused persons were asking her informant and her family members that “Cobbler, vacate the house and leave it (pkaHkV~;k gs ?kj [kkyh dj) and issued threat. At that time, the other persons from the said lane i.e. Vivek Sudam Gosavi, Ganesh Khandu Shevale, intervened and separated the appellants and the victim / informant. Her husband Namdev Bagul sustained invisible injuries to his leg, therefore, he was hospitalized. On the basis of said oral report, Crime No.494 of 2025 registered with Amalner Police Station on 25.11.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 115(2), 296, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed that, the alleged incident was occurred on 12.11.2025, however, the F.I.R. No.0294 of 2025 registered on 25.11.2025 i.e. after lapse of 13 days period and no explanation has been given about lodging the delayed report in the F.I.R. Therefore, the Respondent no. 3 lodged the false