Bombay High Court
PARVATI MARUTI PATIL AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that despite the statutory bar under Section 18, anticipatory bail may be granted where the allegations are weak, evidence is insufficient, and the appellant is a senior citizen, provided she cooperates with the investigation.
Summary
Parvati Maruti Patil, a 75‑year‑old senior citizen, and her daughter‑in‑law sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in Crime No.132 of 2022, which alleged offences under IPC sections 504 and 506 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail on the ground of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. On appeal, the High Court examined the FIR, the complainant’s original and supplementary statements, and noted the absence of independent witnesses and the appellant’s advanced age. The Court found the supplementary allegations against the senior citizen weak and, considering her vulnerability, ordered interim bail subject to cooperation with the investigation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the interim bail order confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail in the present case.
- Whether the nature of the allegations and the appellant's age justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the lack of independent corroborative evidence affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 18, 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(2)(5A)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 18
- senior citizen
- lack of evidence
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
3-apeal-938-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2023
Parvati Maruti Patil & Anr …Appellants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
PRAMOD Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w Adv. Y. Sawant, Advocate for the Appellant.
SANTOSH
LAKARE Ms. S. S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent/State.
Digitally signed by
PRAMOD
SANTOSH LAKARE
Date: 2026.08.29
17:31:18 +0530
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 29.08.2026.
P.C. :
1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated
07.08.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel,
Raigad, in Criminal Bail Application No. 682 of 2023.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by the
present appellants who are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.
132 of 2022 registered at Taloja police station for the offences
punishable under Sections 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(g)(u) & 3(2)(5A) of the Scheduled Castes and
Pramod S.Lakare
1/7
3-apeal-938-2023.doc
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned APP for the respondent/State.
4. This Court on 29.08.2023 passed the following order :
1. The two Appellants are apprehending their
arrest in connection with C.R.No.132 of 2022,
registered with Taloja Police Station, which has
invoked Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(g)(u) and 3(2)(5A) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “The
Atrocities Act”).
Appellant No.1 is a woman aged 75 years
and is a senior citizen, whereas Appellant No.2 is
informed to be a married woman, having a child of
four years. They are apprehending their arrest in
connection with the subject C.R., as their
application came to be rejected by the Special
Court on the ground of bar under Section 18 of the
Pramod S.Lakare
2/7
3-apeal-938-2023.doc
Atrocities Act.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr.Patil for the
Appellants, who face strong opposition from the
learned A.P.P.
On perusal of the F.I.R., which has invoked
the provisions of the Atrocities Act, it is seen that
the complainant lodged a complaint, on
01/05/2022, where the accusations are levelled
against Abhijit Maruti Patil, son of Appellant No.1
and it is stated that he hurled abuses at the
complainant on 30/04/2022 in the evening hours,
since a compound wall was erected by him around
his plot, which is abutting to the plot, where the
house of the Complainant is situated.
On 03/05/2022 i.e. after two days,
supplementary statement of the Complainant
came to be recorded, wherein for the frst time, he
referred to an incident, which took place on the
very same date at 10.30 a.m., when Appellant
No.1 is alleged to have abused him in the name of
Pramod S.Lakare
3/7
3-apeal-938-2023.doc
caste and, thereafter, in the evening hours, it is
alleged that Abhijit Patil hurled the abuses at him.
3. Prima facie, the supplementary statement
comes after a period of two days and the
witnesses whose statements are compiled in the
charge-sheet, for corroborating the Complainant,
are his close relations and there is not a single
independent witness.
Considering the fact that the Appellant No.1
is a septuagenarian and in the wake of the
improved version,which has surfaced through a
supplementary statement, when in the original
complaint, there is no reference to her and the
incident involving her is alleged to have taken
place in the morning hours of the date of the
incident, I deem it appropriate to protect Appellant
No.1 by the interim order, subject to her co-
operation in the investigation.
As far as Appellant No.2 is concerned, except
the vague statement contained in the
Pramod S.Lakare
4/7
3-apeal-938-2023.doc
supplementary statement of the Complainant,
recorded on 03/05/2022, stating that despite the
complaint being lodged, mother and sister of
Accused No.1 continue the quibble and abuses,
there is no other material in the charge-sheet and
even she deserve protection from arrest.
4. Hence, issue notice to respondent No.2,
making it returnable on 25/09/2023.
Notice shall be served through the
Investigating Offcer, who shall apprise Respondent
No.2, about his right of being represented in the
Appeal, either by remaining present in the Court or
through the counsel of his choice or seek
assistance from the Legal Aid.
Till Respondent No.2 is served and mark his
presence, the Appellants deserve the protection by
way of the following ad-interim order.
:ORDER”
(a) In the event of arrest in connection
Pramod S.Lakare
5/7
3-apeal-938-2023.doc
with C.R.No.132 of 2022 registered with
Taloja Police Station, Appellant No.1-Parvati
Maruti Patil and Appellant No.2- Vaijayanti
@ Vishranti Maruti Patil @ Vishranti Ganesh
Gaaykar shall be released on bail
onfurnishing P.R. Bond to the extent of
Rs.25,000/- each, with one or more sureties
in the like amount.
(b) The Appellants shall report to the
concerned police station on Thursday and
Friday between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. for
a period of two weeks and, thereafter, as
and when called for.
(c) The Appellants shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing the facts to Court or any Police
Offcer and shall not tamper with evidence.
5. Re-notify to 25/09/2023.
Pramod S.Lakare
6/7
3-apeal-938-2023.doc
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that,
pursuant to the above order, the appellants attended the
concerned police station and co-operated in the investigation. It is
submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation.
6. The learned APP submits that, considering the nature of
offence, the appellants may not be released on anticipatory bail.
7. It appears that the prosecution has already filed the
charge-sheet against the co-accused. Considering the overall facts
and circumstances, I am inclined to confirm the interim order
passed by this Court dated 29.03.2023. In the result, the following
order is passed :
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The order impugned is set aside.
iii) The interim order passed by this Court
dated 29.08.2023 is hereby confirmed.
iv) The appellants shall attend the concerned
police station as and when call by the
investigation officer for the purpose of filing
supplementary charge-sheet.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Pramod S.Lakare
7/7
Checking your session…