Bombay High Court

NEERAJ SHITAL SHAHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The court held that the alleged incident did not occur in public view and therefore does not attract the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, confirming the interim relief.

Summary

The appellant, Neeraj Shital Shah, appealed against an order granting interim relief in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR alleged that the alleged offence occurred inside the appellant's cabin and was not heard by anyone else, i.e., not in public view. The appellant argued that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, such a private incident does not attract the provisions of the Act. The court examined the FIR and found that the incident was indeed private, applying the reasoning of Hitesh Verma. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim relief and allowed the appeal. The decision underscores that an offence under the SC/ST Act must have a public dimension to be cognizable.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged incident, occurring inside a private cabin, constitutes an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Whether the interim relief previously granted to the appellant should be confirmed.
Whether the precedent set in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand is applicable to the present facts.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

SC/ST Act
Atrocity
Private vs Public offence
Interim relief
Appeal
Hitesh Verma precedent
Criminal law

Judgment

                                                                       8-CRAPEAL-1061-2025.DOC




                                                                                        Shephali

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1061 OF 2025

                   Neeraj Shital Shah                                             …Appellant
                         Versus
                   State of Maharashtra & Anr                                  …Respondents

                   Mr Yuvraj Narvankar, for the Appellant.
                   Mr AS Gawai, APP, for Respondent No. 1-State.
                   Mr Shashikant Damodarlal Chandak, with Kanchan Chandak,
                         appointed Advocate, for Respondent No. 2.
                   Mr Vikas Jaktode, PSI, Hinjewadi Police Station, is present.

                                              CORAM:        R. M. JOSHI, J.
SHEPHALI                                      DATED:        2ND FEBRUARY 2026
SANJAY
MORMARE            PC:-
Digitally signed
by SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
                   1.     Heard.
Date: 2026.02.02
18:23:13 +0530


                   2.     Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
                   statement made in the First Information Report even is accepted
                   as true, no offence can be said to have been made attracting the
                   provisions of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
                   (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is his submission that
                   relying upon the Judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. The
                   State of Uttarakhand,1 the interim relief granted by this Court
                   deserves to be confirmed.

                   3.     Learned APP and counsel for Respondent No. 2 opposed the
                   Appeal. It is the contention of counsel for Respondent No. 2 that
                   the incident has occurred inside the cabin of the Appellant, which


                   1      AIR 2020 SC 5584.




                                                       Page 1 of 2
                                              8-CRAPEAL-1061-2025.DOC




is a transparent and, therefore, the incident has been witnessed
by the other persons in the office. It is his further submission that
the allegation made in the memo of Appeal, so also, facts of the
Appeal subsequent to the grant of interim relief amounts to
offences.

4.    Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report indicates
that the offence has not been committed in public view. Since the
informant categorically states that the alleged incident having
occurred inside the cabin of the Appellant. Not only this, he
further states that whatever was discussed in the cabin was not
heard by any one else. It is, therefore, clear from the report itself
that the offence is not committed in public view, hence, the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh
Verma (Supra), squarely applies to the present case.

5.    Needless to state that, if permissible in law, it is open for
Respondent No. 2 to take action against the Appellant as provided
by law. However, this should not be construed as any leave
granted therefor or merit of submissions of counsel for
Respondent No. 2 being accepted by this Court.

6.    In view of the above, interim relief stands confirmed.

7.    The Appeal stands allowed.


                                                  (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
                                                                        {




                              Page 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…