Bombay High Court
AMAR DADASAHEB PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court allowed the appeal and confirmed the interim bail order for appellants Nos. 2‑11, imposing conditions, while dismissing the appeal of appellant No. 1 as withdrawn.
Summary
The appellants, eleven individuals, filed a criminal appeal seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 622 of 2025, alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Appellant No. 1, Amar Dadasaheb Patil, withdrew his appeal after the court expressed reluctance to grant relief due to his criminal antecedents. The remaining appellants (Nos. 2‑11) contended that they were falsely implicated, that the FIR was filed three months after the alleged incident, and that they had no prior criminal record and had cooperated with the investigation. The State opposed bail, invoking Section 18 of the Atrocities Act which bars anticipatory bail for offences under the Act and arguing the seriousness of the alleged caste‑based boycott. The court observed that the FIR does not directly name appellants 2‑11 and that the question of their liability is for the trial court, but noted their clean records and cooperation. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, confirmed the interim protection order dated 18‑12‑2025 for appellants 2‑11, and imposed specific bail conditions. The appeal of appellant 1 was dismissed as withdrawn, and the appeal as a whole was disposed of after granting bail to the remaining appellants.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to persons alleged to have committed offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the bar in Section 18 of that Act.
- Whether appellants Nos. 2‑11 are directly implicated in the FIR and thus liable to be denied bail.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of criminal antecedents justify confirming the interim bail order.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 3(5), 352
- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 18, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(za)(D), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- Section 18
- criminal antecedents
- interim protection order
- high court bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
1
23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2025
1. Amar Dadasaheb Patil
2. Shankar Ganpati Patil
3. Balaso Tukaram Patil
4. Kakaso Yashwant Patil
5. Sadashiv Babaso Patil
6. Avinash Shamrao Patil
7. Suresh Pandurang Kameri
8. Pramod Shivaji Patil
9. Rekhatai Vitthal Sutar
10. Popat Pralhad Mane
11. Rupali Popat Mane ….Appellants
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra and Anr. ....Respondents
-----
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
Mr. Pratik Prakash Jadhav, for Appellants.
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.07.14
12:20:17
+0530
Dr. A. A. Takalkar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Mohsin Khan i/b Mr. Amar Dhumal, Appointed Advocate for
Respondent No.2 (Through Legal Aid).
PSI, Munde, Miraj Rural Police Station, Sangli, present.
-----
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 10th JULY, 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants, learned APP for the
Respondent – State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
2. The Appellants have approached this Court seeking bail in
connection with Crime No.622 of 2025 dated 25/11/2025, for the offences
punishable under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(zc), 3(1)(za)(D), 3(1)(r) of the
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and Sections 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short, “BNS”)
3. After hearing for sometime, as this Court was not inclined to
grant relief for the Appellant No.1 - Amar Dadasaheb Patil is concerned,
the learned counsel for the Appellants, upon instructions, seeks permission
to withdraw the appeal on behalf of the Appellant No.1 as there are
criminal antecedents against the Appellant No.1 and this Court was not
inclined to grant any relief. Permission is granted. The appeal stands
disposed of as withdrawn, as against the Appellant No.1 is concerned.
4. Insofar as the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are concerned, the learned
counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are
falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that, even if the
allegations in the first information report are taken at their face value, they
may, at the highest, make out a case under the Atrocities Act against
Appellant No.1 and not against the Appellant Nos.2 to 11. It is further
submitted that, there is a delay of about three months in lodging the first
information report. The Appellant Nos.2 to 11 have no criminal
antecedents. By interim order dated 18/12/2025, this Court had granted
interim protection to Appellant Nos.2 to 11 along with Appellant No.1. The
Appellants have attended the concerned police station and have co-
operated with the investigation. The Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are further
ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC
Hence, the Appellant Nos.2 to 11 may be protected by confirming the
interim order.
5. As against this, the learned APP as well as the learned appointed
counsel for Respondent No.2 have strongly opposed the appeal on the
ground that the Appellants are involved in the serious offence under the
Atrocities Act. It is further submitted that Section 18 of the Atrocities Act
specifically bars the grant of anticipatory bail to the person accused of
offences under the said Act. According to the prosecution, there are direct
allegations in the first information report and there is ample evidence
collected against the Appellants and charge-sheet is now filed charge-
sheeting the present Appellants under the serious offence under the
Atrocities Act. The Appellants have acted together to outcast the “Pardhi
Community” from the village and the offence is serious in nature. If the
Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are released on bail, they may again commit
identical offences in future. Hence, this is not a fit case to release the
Appellant Nos.2 to 11 on bail.
6. I have gone through the investigation papers which has
culminated into filing of the charge-sheet. Prima facie, Appellant Nos.2 to
11 are not directly named in the F.I.R. The allegations of abusing in the
name of caste is against the main accused Appellant No.1 - Amar
Dadasaheb Patil, and his application is already withdrawn. Whether the
offences under the Atrocities Act are made out against the Appellant Nos.2
to 11 is a matter which requires consideration at the trial. Though
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4
23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC
Appellant Nos.2 to 11 are referred to in the First Information Report by
reference to their respective professions, whether they were parties to the
alleged resolution passed by the villagers to socially boycott the
complainant and members of the Pardhi community is a matter to be
decided by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence that may be
adduced by the prosecution.
7. However, taking into consideration that Appellant Nos.2 to 11
have no criminal antecedents and were protected by interim order and
have co-operated with the investigation. The investigation is complete and
charge-sheet has already been filed, and they are ready to abide by any
conditions that may be imposed by this Court, therefore, I am inclined to
protect the Appellant Nos.2 to 11. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The interim order dated 18/12/2025, insofar as it
relates to Appellant Nos.2 to 11, is hereby confirmed.
iii. Since the charge-sheet has been filed, the Appellant
Nos.2 to 11 shall attend the concerned police station
as and when called by the Investigating Officer.
iv. The Appellant Nos.2 to 11 shall not directly or
indirectly, threaten, induce, influence, or contact the
complainant or any other members of the
complainant’s family.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5
23-APEAL-1009-2025.DOC
v. A single violations of the aforesaid conditions, or any
complaint of threatening or intimidating the
complainant or member of his community, shall
entitle the prosecution or the complainant to seek
cancellation of bail.
8. In view of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the appeal is
allowed and stands disposed off accordingly.
9. The fees of the learned appointed counsel Mr. Amar Dhumal,
shall be quantified as per rules by the High Court Legal Aid Sub-
Committee.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…