NISHA DEEPAK SHARMAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                        39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




                                                     Navnath Waghmare (P.A.)


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2025

Deepak Kantilal Sharma                         ....Appellant
         Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.              ...Respondents
                             WITH
               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 490 OF 2025
Nikki @ Nikita Deepak Sharma                       Appellant
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.              ...Respondents
                             WITH
                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 491 OF 2025
Nisha Deepak Sharma                                Appellant
           Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                  Respondents
                             WITH
                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 492 OF 2025
Swarnima Deepak Sharma                         ....Appellant
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.              ...Respondents


Mr. Prabhanjay Dave with Ms. Bharti Bhogesara for the
     Appellant.
Mr. Ashok S. Gawai APP for the State - Respondent
Mr. Rahul Pandey with Ms. Suchita Pandey for Respondent
No.2.
Mr. Siddhartha Dhumal,     API, Malvani Police Station present in
Court.




                            Page 1 of 13
                         20th February, 2026
                                       39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




                    CORAM:                    R. M. JOSHI, J.
                    RESERVED ON               20th February, 2026
PC:-                PRONOUNCED ON             27th February, 2026



1.     These Appeals filed under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes ( Prevention of

Atrocities ) Act, 1989 take exception to the orders dated 27th

March, 2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.

346/2025, 347/2025, 348/2025 and 349/2025 whereby the

Application for pre-arrest bail filed by the Appellants in

connection with Crime No. 38 of 2025 registered with

Malvani Police Station for the offence punishable under

Sections 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the

Atrocities Act., came to be rejected by Special Court.


2.     On 08th January, 2025, a report came to be lodged by

the first informant stating that he has friendship with Ravi

Arora for last 15 years and they are also business

partners. He states about Ravi Arora getting married with



                           Page 2 of 13
                        20th February, 2026
                                        39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




Swarnima (one of the Appellant) in the year 2019. He claims

that after the marriage, there used to occur quarrels between

the husband and wife. The informant further states about

occurrence of the incidents from January, 2020 to January,

2021, in which is is said to have been abused and insulted

over his caste. Amongst other contentions, according to the

informant, in March, 2020, they went to hotel “ The 101

Corner”, wherein Swarnima insulted her in presence of the

staff as well as the ice cream vendor. It is stated that in

September, 2020 also she throw water used for clensing

purpose on him and also abused him. An incident is also

narrated which is said to have occurred in Orbit Mall in

November, 2020, wherein the sister and the mother of

Swarnima have abused and insulted the Informant over his

caste. Finally it is stated that the father of Swarnima abused

him over his caste in the court premises on 28th January,

2021.


3.      On the basis of this report, the Appellants arrest and

filed pre-arrest bail applications before the Special Court. By


                            Page 3 of 13
                         20th February, 2026
                                        39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




the impugned orders, the Special Court rejected those

applications and hence these Appeals.


4.    Since these Appeals involved same question of facts and

law, by consent of both sides, they are heard and decided

together.


5.    Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that this is a

clear cut case of false implication of the Appellants with

mala-fide intention to counter blast the proceedings filed by

Swarnima against her husband Ravi Arora. It is submitted

that the report came to be lodged in January, 2025, in respect

of the incidents allegedly occurred in March, 2020 till 27 th

January, 2021. It is his submission that there is no probable

explanation for not lodging the report about the incident

immediately. According to him, since the proceedings under

the D.V. Act are filed by Swarnima against her husband Ravi

Arora, the present complaint came to be lodged by way of

counter blast at his instance. It is thus submitted that the fact

that the informant does not remain present before the Court




                            Page 4 of 13
                         20th February, 2026
                                        39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




but the husband of Swarnima attends the hearing of the

present Appeals. This according to him indicates that the

report is false and is lodged at the instant of the husband of

Appellants – Swarnima. It is submitted that the incident

alleged to have occurred during Covid -2019 period, are not

possible to have been caused, as there were restrictions for

the free movement of the people and that activities such as

Mall etc. were not permitted by the Government. In any case,

it is his submission that the offence has not been committed

in public view since not witnessed by any independent

witness and, as nothing is to be recovered at the instance of

the Appellants, this is a fit case for confirmation of the

interim relief granted to the Appellants.


6.    Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that

at this stage the correctness or otherwise of the allegations

cannot be gone into. It is his submission that complaint in

respect of incidents in question is filed in January, 2021 itself

and hence, there is no delay in filing First Information Report.

According to him, the FIR clearly indicates that the incidents


                            Page 5 of 13
                         20th February, 2026
                                          39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




have occurred at the public place and thus in the public view.

It is submitted that before lodging of the report, notices were

issued to the Appellants and that merely on the ground that

the offence is registered belatedly, which in fact is not so, the

Appellants are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. It is submitted

that in view of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, there is

embargo created for grant of anticipatory bail.


7.        Learned APP also opposed the Appeals essentially on

the ground that the incidents in question have occurred in

public view. In this regard, the reference            is made to the

statements recorded during the course of investigation. There

is also a grievance made that after obtaining the interim

relief,     the   Appellants   have      not     co-operated    in   the

investigation. With regard to the contentions of the

Appellants about the Mall being closed in November, 2020,

relying upon the affidavit filed on record, it is submitted that

during the said period, the Malls were allowed to function on

these and among other days, he seeks rejection of the pre-

arrest bail.


                               Page 6 of 13
                           20th February, 2026
                                        39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




8.      There cannot be any dispute made with regard to the

proposition canvased by the learned counsel for the

Respondent No.2/ Informant that in case              prima-facie     is

made out against the Appellant under the provisions of

Atrocities Act, bar created by Section 18 thereof would apply.

It is therefore, necessary to see as to whether prima-facie

offence under the Atrocities Act is made out in the instant

case.


9.      The material placed before this Court is considered on

its face value in order to ascertain as to whether prima-facie

offence is seen to have made out against the appellant

attracting provisions of Atrocities Act.


10.     Record indicates that on 14th January, 2021 a complaint

was made by Informant against Appellant with Police Station

making reference to the incidents occurred in February 2020,

March 2020, November 2020 and January 2021, this

complaint came to be lodged after Appellant – Swarnima

lodged complaint against her husband Ravi Arora in near




                            Page 7 of 13
                         20th February, 2026
                                       39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




Police Station and registered NC on 03 rd November, 2020.

Moreover the First Information Report came to be lodged on

08th January, 2025 after the Appellant – Swarnima filed

divorce petition against her husband- Ravi Arora.


11.   From the First Information Report it is clear that

Informant is friend of Ravi. Though, a complaint was made in

January, 2021 in respect of incident in question, in the F.I.R.

there is no reference made about the said complaint lodged

by the Informant. It is found on the basis of material on

record that in 2021 after occurrence of the dispute between

Appellant– Swarnima and her husband Ravi and after lodging

of complaint against him, complaint sought to be lodged by

Informant in January, 2021 similarly after lodging of the

divorce petition so also on being made as a party to the

proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, present

report came to be lodged on 08th January, 2025. In the light

of these facts, it is specifically argued on behalf of the

Appellant that the present report came to be lodged at the

instance of the husband of Appellant and the Informant is not


                           Page 8 of 13
                        20th February, 2026
                                        39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




pursuing the said proceeding. but, it being perused by her

husband of the Appellant – Swarnima. It is pointed out that

the husband of Appellant-Swarnima remains present in this

Court at hearing and not the Informant himself. This

contention has not been rebutted on behalf of the Informant,

as there is no specific serial mode of the said allegation.

Though, the said fact does not become a decessive factor

however, would become an attending circumstance.


12.   In the aforesaid facts though it cannot be said that there

was no complaint made in respect of the incident in question

prior to lodging of F.I.R, however, prima-facie perusal of said

complaint and F.I.R. lodged indicates the variance in the

version of informant in both.


13.   This Court is required to see, prima-facie as to whether

the offence in question has occurred in public view in order

to attract provisions of Atrocities Act.


14.   It is the case of the informant that in January, 2020 on

occasion of birth of his daughter, he along with Ravi went to



                            Page 9 of 13
                         20th February, 2026
                                      39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




see his wife-Gayatri at Surat, Appellant-Swarnima quarreled

with Ravi on the same ground, in February, 2020 Appellant-

Swarnima came to know about informant belonging to

member of Scheduled Cast community reference is made with

regard to talk between Appellant –Swarnima and Ravi,

questioning as to why she was taken to his house. In this

regard the statement made in the complaint dated 14 th

January, 2021 are inconsistent and the contrary to the F.I.R.

Similarly, it is claimed that in March, 2020 Appellant –

Swarnima came to the hotel “The 101 Corner” at about 8:30

PM and at that time applicant - swarnima throw the water on

his face and abused him. He claims that the said incident is

occurred in the presence of Hotel Staff and Ice-cream Vendor-

(Anwarali Abbas Ali Shaikh). In this regard, in the complaint

filed on 14thJanuary, 2021 he states that appellant-swarnima

insulted him and as he was so embarrassed to notice, if any,

staff member had seen it or not. It is after 4 years he claims

that the incident was witnessed by Vendor-Anwarali. The

statement of Anwarali indicates that he had acquaintance



                          Page 10 of 13
                       20th February, 2026
                                       39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




with the informant. If he is independent, it would be

impossible that he would name all the persons present at

spot. Moreover, his statement is recorded after 4 years of the

occurrence of the incident and thus it becomes doubtful.

Therefore, it cannot be said that he is a independent witness

and in whose presence alleged incident has occurred.


15.   In so far as incident of November, 2020 in respect of

Sister and Mother of swarnima occurred in Orbit mall, Malad

(west) Mumbai, there is discrepancy in respect of place at

which the incident has occurred. In any case, no one else

except for the Ravi has witnessed the said incident. Similar is

case about allegation against the father of swarnima, abusing

informant on his caste in respect of the incident occurred on

28th January, 2021 in the court, there is no witness much less

independent witness.


16.   Learned A.P.P has placed on record the investigation

papers. Perusal of the investigation papers indicate recording

of statement of no other statement except Ravi and Anwarali.




                           Page 11 of 13
                        20th February, 2026
                                       39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




Thus it can be said the incident occurred in Orbit Mall as well

as in the Court cannot be said to have occurred in public

view, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Hitesh Varma Vs. State of Uttarakhand AIR 2020

SC 5584, AIR Online 2020 SC 812.


17.   Considering the facts on record on the basis of it

indicate that the offence alleged against the appellant have

not occurred in public view. Moreover, the F.I.R. is apparently

lodged by way of counter blast to the proceedings filed by the

appellant-swarnima against informant as well as Ravi under

the Domestic Violence Act, so also the petition of divorce was

filed against Ravi. The possibility of false implication of the

Appellant is not ruled out.


18.   On the basis of material on record it cannot be said that

offence under the Atrocities Act is prima-facie made out in

order to apply embargo created by Section 18 of the Act.


19.   Liberty of the appellants is protected by this Court by

order dated 24th June, 2025 and there is nothing on record to



                           Page 12 of 13
                        20th February, 2026
                                         39-CRI. APEAL_492_2025_O.APEALS




show that the appellants have abuse the same. Moreover

having regard to the nature of offence, custodial interrogation

of the appellant is not necessary. Consequently, this Court

finds no reason/ justification for not confirming interim relief.


20.   Criminal    Appeals      therefore,      stand    allowed      by

confirming interim relief.



                                                    (R. M. JOSHI, J.)




                                                                        {




                             Page 13 of 13
                         20th February, 2026