Bombay High Court

MUKESH DAULAT GANGURDEversusVILAS DIGAMBAR PAGAR AND ANR

Decided: 6 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: N R BORKAR

Holding

The Sessions Court erred in granting anticipatory bail without considering the relevant documents and the bar under Sections 18/18A, and its order is set aside.

Summary

The appellant Mukesh D. Gangurde filed an appeal under Section 14A of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, which granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Vilas D. Pagar. The appellant argued that the Sessions Court ignored the police report filed on the day of the incident and failed to consider the bar provisions under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC & ST Act, which should preclude anticipatory bail. The respondent contended that the charge‑sheet had already been filed and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, justifying the bail. The High Court observed that the lower court had not examined the submitted documents nor recorded any finding on the applicability of the Section 18 bar, and therefore erred in granting bail. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the Sessions Court was directed to rehear the bail application afresh, with the respondent barred from arrest pending that decision.

Issues considered

Whether the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act applies to the anticipatory bail application.
Whether a delay in lodging the police report can be a ground for granting anticipatory bail.
Whether the Sessions Court was required to consider the documents, including the contemporaneous police report, before granting anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 351(3), 352
SC‑ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A, 18, 18A

Subjects

anticipatory bail
SC & ST Act
Section 18 bar
delay in FIR
criminal appeal
bail jurisdiction

Judgment

Digitally 908-apeal-194-26.odt
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA Date:
2026.08.06
19:13:21
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2026

Mukesh D. Gangurde …Appellant
V/s.
Vilas D. Pagar & Anr. ...Respondents.

…………..
Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate i/by. Mr. Akshay Bankapur for the
Appellant.
Mr. Sachin Gite for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.
PSI R.C. Thoke, Sarkarwada Police Station is present.
…………..

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 06.08.2026.
P.C. :

1. This appeal under Section 14A of the SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act takes exception to the order dated 20 th December
2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nashik below
Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 2218 of 2025.

2. The appellant herein is a 8rst informant in Crime No. 306 of
2025 registered at Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik city for the
o:ences punishable under Sections 351(2), 351(3) & 352 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of
the SC and ST Act.

3. By the order impugned, the learned Sessions Court has
allowed the application 8led by the respondent No.1, who is
accused in the aforesaid crime and granted him anticipatory bail.

Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3
908-apeal-194-26.odt

4. I have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, the
learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned APP for the
respondent No.2/State.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Sessions Court has allowed the application for anticipatory
bail on the ground of delay in lodging the report. It is submitted
that on the very same day of incident, the report was lodged with
Sarkarwada Police Station. It is submitted that the said report
along with other documents was 8led before the Sessions Court. It
is submitted that the Sessions Court has not at all considered the
said documents. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions
Court has not considered the bar contained under Sections 18 and
18A of the SC and ST to entertain the anticipatory bail application.
It is submitted that the impugned order therefore needs to be set
aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has
supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the prosecution
has already 8led the charge-sheet in the matter and thus now
there is no need of custodial interrogation. It is submitted that
considering the said fact the present appeal may not be
entertained.

7. I have perused the impugned order. It appears that to
oppose the anticipatory bail application 8led by respondent No.1
certain documents were 8led by the appellant before the Sessions

Dinesh S. Sherla 2/3
908-apeal-194-26.odt

Court, including the report lodged on the date of incident.
However, the learned Sessions Court has not at all considered the
said documents. Apart from it, the learned Sessions Court has also
not recorded any 8nding as to whether the bar contained under
Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is attracted or not. In that view of
the matter, the order impugned cannot be allowed to stand. In the
result, the following order is passed :
ORDER

i) The Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The order impugned is set aside.
iii) The Sessions Court shall decide Criminal Bail
Application No. 2218 of 2025 8led by the respondent
No.1 herein for anticipatory bail afresh on its own
merits.
iv) The appellant and respondent No.1 shall appear
before the Sessions Court on 12 th August 2026 at 11.00
am.
v) The Sessions Court shall endeavour to decide the
application within a period of four weeks from the date
of appearance of the parties, i.e., on 12th August 2026.
vi) Till the decision of the application, the
respondent No.1 herein shall not be arrested.

6. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Dinesh S. Sherla 3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…