Bombay High Court

AMAR ASHOK KARANDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 19 August 2026
Disposal: Rejected

Holding

The trial court's order granting regular bail to the non‑custodial accused is upheld.

Summary

The appellant challenged a Special Court order granting regular bail to respondents Nos.2‑7 under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The respondents had not been arrested during investigation, and the charge‑sheet had already been filed. The appellant argued that bail should not be entertained as the accused were not in custody, while the respondents contended that bail can be granted post‑charge‑sheet without custody, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The Court examined the FIR, noted that only co‑accused were arrested, and held that the trial court correctly entertained the bail applications without taking the respondents into custody. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the bail order intact.

Issues considered

Whether a Special Court can grant regular bail to accused who were not arrested during the investigation and are not in custody at the time of filing the bail application under the SC & ST Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 146, 147, 149, 323, 326, 509
Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1)
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

regular bail
non‑custodial accused
SC & ST Act
Section 14-A
criminal appeal
bail jurisdiction
scheduled caste atrocities

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA Date:
2026.08.21 13-apeal-1003-2025.odt
19:42:54
+0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1003 OF 2025

Amar A. Karande …Appellant
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Ashish K. Ghodke
3. Parvati A. Suryawanshi
4. Maina P. Suryawanshi
5. Supriya J. Suryawanshi
6. Dyaneshwari P. Suryawanshi
7. Mangesh L. Jankar ...Respondents.

…………..
Mr. Raj Kamble a/w. Mr. Bhosale, Mr. Pankaj Dhotre and Mr. Kunal
Kedare for the Appellant.
Mr. V.N. Sagre, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Atul Kakade i/by. Mr. Chandan Yadav for the Respondent Nos.2
to 7.
…………..

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 19.08.2026.

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 25 th November
2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Under the SC and ST
(POA) Act, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai
below Exhibit-6 in Special Case No. 222 of 2023.

2. In the above special case, respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein are
facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 146,

Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3
13-apeal-1003-2025.odt

147, 149, 326, 323, 509 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1),
135 of the Maharashtra Police Act & Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)
(w), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act

3. By the order impugned, the Special Court has granted
regular bail to respondent Nos.2 to 7,

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel for contesting
respondent Nos.2 to 7.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though
respondent Nos.2 to 7 were not in custody, still the Special Court
entertained their application for regular bail. It is further submitted
that the Special Court has very mechanically granted the bail to
respondent Nos.2 to 7. It is therefore, submitted that the order
impugned need to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting
respondent Nos.2 to 7 submits that as there was no need of
custodial interrogation of respondent Nos.2 to 7 and thus they
were not arrested during the course of investigation. It is
submitted that thus after filing of charge-sheet they filed an
application for regular bail. It is submitted that the trial Court
while granting bail to respondent Nos.2 to 7 has considered the
entire material on record. It is submitted that the charges are
already framed and the trial is at the stage of recording evidence.

Dinesh S. Sherla 2/3
13-apeal-1003-2025.odt

It is submitted that considering the overall facts and
circumstances, the present appeal may not be entertained.

7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 submits that if
the accused were not arrested during the course of investigation,
and after filing of charge-sheet they move an application for
regular bail, the same can be entertained by the Court without
taking them in custody. In support of the said submission, the
learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation & Anr1.

8. I have perused the first information report. The main
allegations are against the co-accused Jitendra Suryawanshi and
Machindra Suryawanshi. Both of them were arrested. Admittedly,
respondent Nos.2 to 7 were not arrested during the course of
investigation. The trial Court, therefore, after filing of the charge-
sheet, has rightly entertained their application without taking
them in custody. Considering the overall facts and circumstances,
I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the
Appeal is dismissed.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

1 (2022) 1 SCC (Cri.) 153

Dinesh S. Sherla 3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…