Bombay High Court
MANOJ ANIL KAWADE AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the Special Court's order rejecting bail is set aside and the bail application is remanded for fresh consideration with findings on the prima facie case.
Summary
The appellants challenged the Special Court's rejection of their pre‑arrest bail application, arguing that the court had not examined whether a prima facie case under the Atrocities Act existed. The High Court noted that the Special Court had failed to record any findings on the merits, which would deprive the parties of a Section 14A appeal. Consequently, the Court refrained from making any substantive findings itself, emphasizing procedural propriety. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the bail application remanded to the Special Court for a fresh decision with a requirement to record findings on the prima facie case. The Special Court was directed to decide the matter within four weeks, and interim protection was granted to the appellants for six weeks. No opinion on the merits of the case was expressed by the High Court.
Issues considered
- Whether the Special Court was required to record findings on the existence of a prima facie case under the Atrocities Act before rejecting a pre‑arrest bail application
- Whether the appellate court can set aside the Special Court's order without addressing the merits
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- prima facie case
- Atrocities Act
- appellate jurisdiction
- procedural fairness
- remand
Judgment
48 APEAL 1044-25-CR.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1044 OF 2025
Manoj Anil Kawade and ors. …Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents
Mr. Pratik Shevale, for the Appellants.
Mr. Ashok S. Gawai, APP, for the State.
Mr. Siddhant H. Deshpande, for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 17th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PC:-
1. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Special
Court has rejected the application for pre-arrest bail without
recording any findings as to whether prima facie offence is made
out under the provisions of the Atrocities Act or not.
2. Since the Special Court has not dealt with the merit of the
case, this Court refrains itself from recording any findings in this
appeal for the first time. If such findings are recorded, there
would be denial of an opportunity of appeal under Section 14A to
the aggrieved party.
3. As as result of above discussion, following order is passed:-
PRIYA
RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Digitally signed by
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Date: 2026.02.18
16:27:15 +0530 Page 1 of 2
th
17 February, 2026.
48 APEAL 1044-25-CR.DOC
ORDER
a) The Appeal stands allowed.
b) The impugned order is set aside.
c) Criminal Bail Application No. 6436 of 2025 is
relegated back to the Special Court for decision afresh.
d) The Special Court is directed to record findings
with regard to the prima facie case being made out or
not attracting the provisions of the Atrocities Act and
then to decide the application.
e) It is clarified that the order impugned has been
set aside not on merit nor this Court has expressed
any opinion / view with regard to the merits of the
case.
f) The Special Court is directed to decide the
Application within a period of four weeks from today.
h) Interim protection granted to the Appellants for
a period of six weeks from today.
4. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 2 of 2
th
17 February, 2026.
Checking your session…