Bombay High Court

RAMESHWAR KISAN GIRIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Rejected
Bench: NITIN B SURYAWANSHI

Holding

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted where the investigation shows the applicant directly assaulted the victim and custodial interrogation is necessary.

Summary

The applicant, Rameshwar Kisan Giri, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for assaulting an informant with a wooden stick (sattur). The FIR alleged that the applicant, along with co‑accused, attacked the informant, causing head injuries. The applicant claimed false implication and argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State opposed, presenting eye‑witness testimony and a medical certificate confirming the assault. The Court examined the investigation papers, found direct evidence of the applicant’s assault, and held that custodial interrogation was essential, concluding that the case did not merit anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under CrPC in view of the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act.
Whether the presence of direct evidence of assault and the need for custodial interrogation preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 115(2), 155(1), 189(2), 190, 190(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 351(2), 351(3)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
assault
custodial interrogation
bail denial
scheduled caste atrocity

Judgment

                                         {1}                        45-aba-2519-2025

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                           CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2519 OF 2025

Rameshwar Kisan Giri                               ...Applicant

         Versus

The State of Maharashtra                           ...Respondent

Mr. Anand Patil a/w Mr. Swapnil L., Advocate for the applicant
Mr. A.S. Salgaonkar, APP for State
                                 .......

                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

                                       DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2026

ORDER :

1.                 Applicant apprehends arrest in Crime No. 323 of 2025

registered          with   Solapur   Taluka    Police   Station   for   the   offences

punishable under Sections 115(2), 155(1), 351(2), 351(3), 189(2),

190, 190(2) and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989.


2.                 It is alleged in the FIR that on 15.06.2025 at about 10.00

pm, informant Rohan Audumbar Kamble was proceeding towards his

home at Bismillah Nagar, Mulegaon. Accused Balaji Giri, Rameshwar

Giri (present applicant), Nitin Giri and Sangeeta Giri were present near


Bhagyawant Punde
                                      {2}                   45-aba-2519-2025

one grocery shop and they abused him in the name of his caste. They

also slapped him. He went to his home and narrated the incident.

Thereafter, he along with Sonabai and Sachin returned on the spot of

incident scene. He also called Nitin and Sunny Kamble. They asked the

reason of beating to the accused. At that time, accused Balaji

instigated the co-accused to bring weapons. Accused Balaji Giri

brought a knife and Rameshwar Giri brought a sattur. Balaji assaulted

by knife on the right eye of informant. So also, applicant gave a blow

of sattur on his head. Accused Kiran Giri beat him by fists and kicks.

Sangeeta Giri gave him a burn injury. Sachin Kamble intervened in the

dispute and at that time, applicant gave a blow of wood on his body.

Accused Sukhadeo Maharaj assaulted on the person of Nitin Kamble by

belt. Accused Sameer and Pappya assaulted Sachin by iron rod. The

accused persons threw chilly powder on their persons and fled away

from the spot.


3.                 Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP

for the State. Perused the investigation papers.


4.                 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that applicant

and his family are falsely implicated in the present crime. There are

cross complaint lodged from the applicants’ side against the informant.

He submits that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not

Bhagyawant Punde
                                       {3}                    45-aba-2519-2025

necessary and applicant may be released on bail.


5.                 Learned APP, on the other hand, strenuously opposed the

application stating that there are direct allegations of assault by sattur

made against the applicant and medical certificate supports the said

allegations. He therefore submits that applicant does not deserve

anticipatory bail.


6.                 It appears from the investigation papers that the applicant

has assaulted Rohan on head with sattur. Eye witnesses have

confirmed the said assault. The sattur used by the applicant is yet to

be recovered. There is no merit in the contention of the applicant that

injuries caused to Rohan are simple in nature and therefore, applicant

may be granted anticipatory bail. Since, the applicant has assaulted

the injured on head with sattur, his involvement is apparent from the

papers of investigation, therefore, custodial interrogation of the

applicant is necessary for effective investigation. This is not a fit case

to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Application being devoid of merit is rejected.



                                             (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




Bhagyawant Punde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…