Bombay High Court
MANOHAR CHOTTELAL SHARMAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside and the appellant is released on anticipatory bail with conditions.
Summary
The appellant Manohar C. Sharma filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 14‑A of the SC & ST Act after a FIR was lodged for alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the same Act, stemming from a dispute over garbage removal and alleged caste‑based abuse. The prosecution alleged that the appellant insulted the complainant’s caste and threatened him, while the defence argued that there was no proof the appellant knew the complainant’s caste or that the incident occurred in public view. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application, invoking the bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18‑A of the SC & ST Act. On appeal, the High Court examined the FIR and found the appellant’s lack of knowledge of the complainant’s caste and the private nature of the incident to be material facts. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond and conditions of cooperation with the investigation. The order also directed the appellant not to tamper with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A of the SC & ST Act when the alleged offences are under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s).
- Whether the bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18‑A of the SC & ST Act applies in the present facts.
- Whether the appellant had knowledge of the complainant’s caste and whether the alleged incident occurred in public view.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A, 18, 18-A, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC & ST Act
- caste based harassment
- Section 18 bar
- Section 14‑A
- public view
- knowledge of caste
- bail conditions
Judgment
DINESH
SADANAND
SHERLA
16-apeal-1186-25.odt
Digitally signed by
DINESH SADANAND
SHERLA
Date: 2026.10.09
19:18:03 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1186 OF 2025
Manohar C. Sharma …Appellant.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.
…………..
Mr. Monish Bhatia a/w. Mr. Mohit Jagiasi for the Appellant.
Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Sushan N. Mhatre, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
API Manoj S. Khule, Hill Line Police Station, Ulhasnagar is present.
…………..
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 08.10.2026.
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 21.11.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan below
Exhibit-1 and 3 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2478 of 2025.
2. By the order impugned, learned Additional Sessions Judge
has rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed by the
present appellant, who is apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.613 of
2025 registered at Hill Line Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST Act.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of the
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3
16-apeal-1186-25.odt
incident, which took place on 4.11.2025 a dispute arose between
the first informant who belongs to scheduled caste and the
present appellant on account of the removal of garbage which was
lying near the first informant’s house. It is alleged that during the
said dispute, the appellant had abused the first informant on his
caste and obstructed the employees of Konark Company who had
come to clean the garbage. It is further alleged that when the first
informant objected to the caste based remarks, the appellant
threatened him of dire consequences.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is
nothing to show that the appellant was aware of the caste of the
first informant. It is further submitted that the allegations do not
show that the alleged incident occurred within a public view. It is
submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the
appellant is ready to cooperate with the investigation.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State and
learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that there are specific
allegations in respect of abuses based on caste. It is submitted
that in view of the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18-A of
the SC & ST Act, the application for anticipatory bail may not be
entertained.
Dinesh S. Sherla 2/3
16-apeal-1186-25.odt
7. I have perused the F.I.R.. Prima facie there appears to be
substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that there is no material to indicate that the appellant
was aware about the caste of the first informant. Apart from it,
prima facie, the alleged incident does not appear to have occurred
within a public view. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to
release the appellant on anticipatory bail on certain conditions. In
the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside.
(iii) In the event of arrest of the appellant in C.R. No.613 of
2025 registered at Hill Line Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST Act, he
shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(iv) The appellant shall attend the concerned police station
as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall
cooperate in the investigation.
(v) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.