ATUL BHAIRVNATH KHUPSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                   18-APEAL--1015-2025.doc

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        APPEAL NO.1015 OF 2025
Atul Bhairvnath Khupse                          …..Appellant
      Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.                 …..Respondents
Mr. Ashutosh Parwant i/b Mr. Viresh Parwant, for the Appellant.
Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Shailesh Chavan, for Respondent No.2
Mr. Prashant Madane, Tembhurni Police Station
                               CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
                                DATED : 17th FEBRUARY 2026
P.C.:-

1.       The Appellant apprehends arrest in C.R. No.711 of 2025

registered with Tembhurni Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and

Sections 109, 119(1), 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.


2.       It is the case of the prosecution that the first informant was

working as a labourer on the farm of the present Appellant. He was

residing in the said farm and was engaged in agricultural work there.

It is alleged that initially, for about fifteen days, the first informant


Suresh                                                                  1/9
                                                    18-APEAL--1015-2025.doc

stayed in the farm at the request of the Appellant. Thereafter, when

the first informant expressed his desire to leave the farm and to

attend the work by commuting from his house, the Appellant

allegedly refused to permit him to do so and abused him by taking

the name of his caste and also assaulted him. Consequently, the first

informant continued to work on the farm.


3.       It is further alleged that again, on the occasion of Raksha

Bandhan, the first informant requested permission to go to his house.

At that time, he was allegedly assaulted by fist and blows and was

not allowed to leave the farm. He was compelled to stay back and

continue to work. It is alleged that on this occasion also, he was

abused by taking the name of his caste. The prosecution alleges that

whenever the first informant attempted to escape, the present

Appellant along with other co-accused assaulted him and abused him

by referring to his caste.


4.       The prosecution further refers to a specific incident dated 20th

September 2025, wherein it is alleged that the first informant was

compelled to consume poison. It is alleged that he was assaulted by

the co-accused and poison was administered to him. Thereafter, he


Suresh                                                                   2/9
                                                     18-APEAL--1015-2025.doc

was taken to the hospital, where threats were allegedly given to him,

and under pressure he made a statement that he had himself

consumed the poison. It is alleged that the medical expenses were

not paid by the accused persons and that he was subsequently

discharged from the hospital.


5.       It is further alleged that a false complaint was thereafter

lodged against the present Applicant by the daughter of one of the

co-accused, pursuant to which the Applicant came to be arrested.


6.       The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that

the Appellant is a politician person and that several criminal cases

have been registered against him on account of his political

agitations and activities. It is submitted that in many of the said

cases, the Appellant has already been discharged. A detailed chart

indicating the cases registered against the Appellant has been placed

on record. In all, about twenty-six cases have been registered against

the Appellant, all of which arise out of his political activities.


7.       It is further submitted that the Appellant has not committed

any offence as alleged and that he is falsely implicated in the present



Suresh                                                                    3/9
                                                     18-APEAL--1015-2025.doc

case with an ulterior motive. The allegations regarding abuse by

taking the name of caste are false, concocted, and made only with a

view to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.


8.       In view of the above circumstances, it is prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to protect the Appellant by granting

him anticipatory bail.


9.       The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2

opposed the Application and submitted that the offence registered

against the complainant was lodged only after registration of the

present crime and that the same was filed by making false allegations

against the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has

been in jail since then, as offences under the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act have been invoked against him.


10.      It is further submitted that serious allegations are made against

the present Applicant and that, owing to political influence, the

Applicant has been discharged in several earlier offences, as is

evident from the chart placed on record by the Appellant himself. It



Suresh                                                                    4/9
                                                     18-APEAL--1015-2025.doc

is contended that the Applicant is a person who has been exerting

pressure upon the complainant.


11.      It is therefore submitted that considering the seriousness of the

offences and the conduct of the Applicant, custodial interrogation of

the Applicant is necessary. Hence, it is prayed that the Application be

rejected.


12.      The   learned   Assistant   Public   Prosecutor   opposed      the

Application and submitted that a number of criminal cases are

registered against the present Appellant, including offences of a

serious nature. It is submitted that the Appellant is a habitual

offender and that, owing to political influence, he has been

discharged in some of the earlier cases.


13.      It is further submitted that the Appellant has misused his

position and has committed the alleged offences under the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989. It is contended that the statutory bar under Section 18 of

the said Act is attracted in the present case.


14.      Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, it is


Suresh                                                                    5/9
                                                    18-APEAL--1015-2025.doc

submitted that custodial interrogation of the Appellant is necessary.

Hence, it is prayed that the Application be rejected.


15.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.


16.      Upon perusal of the FIR, it appears that several incidents are

alleged to have occurred since 9th May 2025. The allegations

repeatedly refer to assaults by wooden sticks and by fist and blows,

and on each occasion it is alleged that abusive words referring to

caste were uttered. However, it is significant to note that no

complaint was lodged by the informant contemporaneously with any

of the alleged incidents.


17.      The offence under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

has also been invoked; however, at the relevant point of time, no

complaint was made and the informant himself stated that he had

consumed poison on his own.


18.      Though the FIR contains allegations of caste-based abuse, it is

evident that the informant did not report the alleged utterances

immediately. The crime registered under the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act pertains to the daughter of one of the co-


Suresh                                                                   6/9
                                                    18-APEAL--1015-2025.doc

accused and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as a counter-FIR

arising out of the offence registered against the present Applicant.

The said offence is not registered against the present Applicant.


19.      It is further noticed that the informant is presently in jail,

whereas the present Appellant has disclosed about twenty-four

antecedents against him. The Appellant has fairly placed on record a

chart indicating the cases in which his name appears, the cases in

which he has been discharged, and the reasons for his implication,

which according to him arise out of his political activities.


20.      Considering the nature of the allegations made in the present

FIR, it is apparent that none of the alleged incidents are stated to

have taken place in public view. Consequently, no prima facie offence

under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 is attracted, and therefore the bar under Section

18 of the said Act does not come into operation.


21.      Considering the circumstances, a case is made out to protect

the Applicant by granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the following

orders:



Suresh                                                                   7/9
                                                          18-APEAL--1015-2025.doc

                                      ORDER


         i)      Appeal is allowed.


         ii)     In the event of arrest of the Appellant, namely, Atul
         Bhairvnath    Khupse    shall     furnish personal     bond    of
         Rs.15,000/- with his recent self-attested photograph and
         surety of the like amount on the following conditions at
         the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

         iii)    The Appellant shall remain present before the
         concerned police station on every Thursday between 11.00
         a.m. to 01.00 p.m.;

         iv)     The    Appellants       shall   cooperate    with     the
         investigation and make himself available for interrogation
         whenever required;

         v)      The Appellant shall not obstruct or hamper the
         police investigation and not to play mischief with the
         evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

         vi)     The Appellant shall maintain law and order;

         vii)    The Appellant shall, at the time of execution of the
         bond, furnish his residential address and contact number
         to the Investigating Officer, and the Court concerned, and
         shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the
         case;



Suresh                                                                         8/9
                                                            18-APEAL--1015-2025.doc

         viii)   The Appellant shall regularly remain present during
         the trial, and cooperate with the Hon’ble Court to complete
         the trial for the above offenses.

         ix)     If breach of any of the above conditions is
         committed, the order of anticipatory bail would be
         canceled. It would be open to the Investigating Officer to
         file an application for remand, and the Magistrate
         concerned would decide it on merits, without being
         influenced by the grant of anticipatory bail order.

         x)      The Applicant shall not commit any offence. In the
         event the Applicant commits any offence during the
         pendency of the present crime, the State shall be at liberty
         to file an application for cancellation of bail.




                                      (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)




Suresh                                                                           9/9