Bombay High Court

AMOL SAHEBRAO RAUTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: Allowed
Bench: NITIN B SURYAWANSHI

Holding

The Court held that no prima facie case under the SCST Act exists against the appellant and that anticipatory bail is warranted, confirming the interim protection.

Summary

The appellant, Amol Sahebrao Raut, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated as a witness to a fraudulent sale deed executed in 2010, alleged to violate several IPC offences and provisions of the SCST Act. The complainant, Laxmi Bajarang Katakdaunde, claimed the deed was forged using an impostor and that the appellant signed as a witness. The FIR was lodged in May 2024, creating a significant delay, and a charge‑sheet was filed in March 2025. The trial court rejected the bail application, but the High Court noted that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation and that no prima facie case under the SCST Act was made out against him. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the trial court’s order, and confirmed the interim protection previously granted. The decision rests on the lack of substantive evidence linking the appellant to the alleged atrocities and the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under the circumstances.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant for the alleged offences under the IPC and the SCST Act.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR defeats the appellant's claim for bail.
Whether the appellant's role as a witness to the sale deed attracts liability under the SCST Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(f), 3(2)(V), 6

Subjects

anticipatory bail
SCST Act
fraudulent sale deed
witness liability
delay in FIR
Indian Penal Code
scheduled castes and tribes
interim protection
criminal procedure

Judgment

1
28-APEAL-1217-2024 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
28 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1217 OF 2024

Amol Sahebrao Raut ...Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...Respondents

...
Mr. Chandrakant Yadav, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. C. D. Mali, APP for the State
...

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.
DATE : 28th JANUARY 2026.
P.C.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj in Criminal Bail Application No. 140

IRESH
MASHAL
of 2024 thereby rejecting Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the
Digitally
signed by
IRESH
MASHAL
appellant in C.R. No. 234 of 2024 registered with Dahivadi Police
Date:
2026.01.28
19:47:15
+0530

Station, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468

and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections

3(1)(f), 3(2)(V) and 6 of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SCST Act’).

2. Prosecution case in short is, that a report is filed by the

complainant Smt. Laxmi Bajarang Katakdaunde, stating that she is

residing at Mumbai since many years as her husband was serving in

R.B.I. at Mumbai. On 04.09.1974, she had purchased land

Iresh
2
28-APEAL-1217-2024 (CR).DOC

admeasuring Hectare 4=23 R out of Gat no.750 and Hectare 6=86 R

out of Gat no.860 situated at village Mhaswad, Taluka Man from

Mahadu Rama Masal, R/o Masalwadi, Tal. Man. Accordingly, her

name was recorded in the record of rights. She was in possession of

the said land. In the year 2016, her son Arun had been at village

Mhaswad. When he returned at Mumbai he informed her that the

portion from the land Gat no.750 seems to be reduced comparing to

the entries in record of rights. He collected the 7/12 extracts and sale-

deed etc. and on verification complainant learned that a fake sale-

deed in respect of Hectare 4=23 R out of Gat no.750 came to be

executed in favour of Ankush Bhiva Virkar and Maruti Ankush Virkar

by her impostor i.e. presenting another lady as complainant before

the concerned authority and got executed the document of sale-deed

on 29.05.2010. The said document is at Sr. No. 1642/2010.

3. The complainant further alleged that she also learned that

one Maruti Tukaram Gajankash and Mahesh Narayan Sarate stood as

the identifiers and persons viz., Vikas Shrimant Didwagh, Hanmant

Mahadeo Katakdaunde and this applicant-accused Amol Sahebrao

Raut from Mhaswad stood as witnesses to the said sale-deed. It is

further alleged that when the complainant perused the sale-deed in

question, she also got knowledge that the photograph affixed on sale-

deed was the photograph of a lady pretender. She also learned that

Iresh
3
28-APEAL-1217-2024 (CR).DOC

voter ID card used for identification by that lady was not of herself.

Accordingly, the offence to that effect is registered on the basis of the

report.

4. Heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned APP for the

State instructed by the concerned officer from the concerned police

station.

5. The offence is allegedly committed in the year 2010, the F.I.R.

is registered on 25th May 2024. The inordinate delay is not properly

explained by the informant. Charge-sheet in the present crime is filed

on 10th March 2025. The allegations against the appellant is that he has

signed the sale deed executed in favour of accused no. 1 as a witness.

Considering the role attributed to the appellant, offences of Atrocity

Act are not attracted against him.

6. Learned APP on instructions submits that accused no. 1 is

granted ad-interim protection by this Court.

7. The appellant was granted interim protection on 19th

November 2024. He has cooperated in the investigation. In view of the

filing of the charge-sheet, custodial interrogation of the appellant is not

necessary. Taking into consideration the allegations levelled against the

appellant, prima facie, no offence under SCST Act are made out against

the appellant. Therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Iresh
4
28-APEAL-1217-2024 (CR).DOC

9. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Vaduj in in Criminal Bail Application No. 140 of 2024

is hereby quashed and set aside.

10. The appeal is allowed by confirming the Ad-interim

protection granted by this Court vide order dated 19 th November

2024.

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

Iresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…