Bombay High Court
SANTOSH RAMCHANDRA GHARATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Since the complaint does not allege any wrongdoing by the appellant, anticipatory bail is permissible and the bar under Sections 18 and 18A does not apply.
Summary
Santosh R. Gharat appealed under Section 14‑A of the SC & ST Act against the special judge’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail for alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC & ST Act. The prosecution alleged that Gharat and a co‑accused abused Scheduled Caste witnesses during a Gram Panchayat meeting, but the complaint and witness statements named only the co‑accused, Prashant Mhatre. Gharat argued there was a delay in filing the FIR, no criminal antecedents, and that the co‑accused had been granted bail. The State contended the FIR was lodged on the same day and that Sections 18 and 18A of the SC & ST Act barred anticipatory bail. The court found no allegation against Gharat, held that the bar did not apply, and allowed the appeal, quashing the refusal and directing that he be released on bail upon furnishing a bond.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A of the SC & ST Act when Sections 18 and 18A impose a bar.
- Whether a delay in lodging the FIR is a ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the appellant is implicated in the alleged caste‑based abuse for purposes of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A, 18, 18A, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC & ST Act
- caste discrimination
- Section 18 bar
- FIR delay
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
14-apeal-628-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 628 OF 2025
Santosh R. Gharat …Appellant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents.
…………..
Mr. Surel Shah, Sr. Advocate a/w Adv. Saakshay Relekar i/by. Adv.
Susmit S. Phatale, for the Appellant.
Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms Sheetal Malvankar for Respondent No.2.
…………..
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 11.09.2026.
P.C. :
1. This appeal under Section 14-A of the of the Scheduled Caste
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short
“SC & ST Act”) takes exception to the order dated 11.6.2025
passed by the learned Special Judge, Panvel-Raigad below Exhibit-
1 in Criminal Bail Application No.343 of 2025.
2. By the order impugned, learned Special Judge has rejected
the application for anticipatory bail filed by the present appellant,
who is apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.98 of 2025 registered at
Uran Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and
Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act.
3. It is the prosecution case that on the date of the incident,
which took place on 09.03.2025 during a meeting of the Gram
Panchayat, the present appellant and the co-accused Prashant
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3
14-apeal-628-25.odt
Mhatre, with a view to humiliate the first informant and
prosecution witnesses, who belong to a Scheduled Caste, had
abused them on their caste.
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant,
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for respondent
No.2/first informant.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that
there is a delay of more than one month in lodging the First
Information Report. It is submitted that though the allegations
against the present appellant and co-accused Prashant Mhatre are
identical, the learned Special Judge has granted anticipatory bail
to the co-accused Prashant Mhatre and refused to grant
anticipatory bail to the appellant. It is submitted that there is no
need of custodial interrogation and the appellant is ready and
willing to cooperate with the investigation. The learned Senior
Counsel submits that there are no other criminal antecedents
against the present appellant.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent–State
and the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the
complaint in relation to the alleged incident was lodged on the
very same day of the incident, i.e., on 09.03.2025. It is submitted
that the FIR came to be registered after recording the statements
of the witnesses and therefore, there is no no delay in lodging the
FIR. It is further submitted that in view of the bar contained under
Sections 18 and 18A of the SC & ST Act, the present appeal for
Dinesh S. Sherla 2/3
14-apeal-628-25.odt
grant of anticipatory bail may not be entertained.
7. I have perused the complaint dated 09.03.2025 lodged by
the first informant and the prosecution witnesses. The entire
allegations in the said complaint are against the co-accused
Prashant Naresh Mhatre, and nothing is alleged against the
present appellant. I have also perused the statement of witness
Rekha Rajesh Kamble recorded on 12.03.2025. The abuses on
caste are specifically attributed to co-accused Prashant Mhatre,
and not to the present appellant. In that view of the matter, I am
inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the
following order is passed.
ORDER
(a) The Appeal is allowed.
(b) The impugned order to the extent of refusing the
anticipatory bail to the present appellant, is quashed and set
aside.
(c) In the event of arrest of the appellant in C.R. No.98 of
2025 registered at Uran Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of
the SC & ST Act, he shall be released on bail on furnishing
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties
in the like amount.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 3/3
Checking your session…