Bombay High Court

MANIKRAO RAMRAO AMBHURE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: Y G KHOBRAGADE

Holding

The High Court quashed the order refusing anticipatory bail and upheld the ad‑interim anticipatory bail granted to the appellants.

Summary

The informant lodged a police report alleging that the appellants, Manikrao Ramrao Ambhure and his son, used casteist language and assaulted her grandson after ordering a chicken shop to close. An FIR was registered under IPC sections 323, 504, 506, 34 and SC/ST Act sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s). The Special Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants, prompting an appeal under Section 14‑A of the SC/ST Act. The High Court noted that the FIR did not specify where the casteist remarks were made and, relying on Supreme Court precedents, found a prima facie case for bail. It also observed that ad‑interim anticipatory bail had already been granted on 27‑03‑2023. Consequently, the court quashed the Special Court’s order denying bail and upheld the anticipatory bail on the same terms. The appeal was disposed of, leaving the bail order in force pending trial.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of casteist abuse and assault under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC.
Whether the Special Court erred in refusing bail in light of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on prima facie cases for anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 504, 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
SC/ST Act
casteist abuse
assault
criminal procedure
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:6531

919-Cri-Apeal-262-2023.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
919 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2023
MANIKRAO RAMRAO AMBHURE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.…
Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. K. S. Patil, APP for Respondent No.1 – State
Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate (Appointed through Legal Aid) for
Respondent No.2
.…

CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

DATE : February 12, 2026
PER COURT :-

1. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for respondent

No.2 made a statement that he has instructions to appear on

behalf of respondent No.2 – informant through the Legal Aid.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the

learned APP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for

respondent No.2 / informant.

3. By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, the appellants / accused take exception to the order dated

1 of 4
(( 2 )) 919-Cri-Apeal-262-2023

14.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-5 /

Special Court, Parbhani, on Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.

172 of 2023, whereby the learned Special Court declined to grant

anticipatory bail to the appellants / accused in connection with Crime

No.32 of 2023, registered with Bori Police Station, District Parbhani,

for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34

of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of

both the sides, I have gone through the record. It is a matter of

record that on 22.02.2023, the respondent No.2 informant lodged a

report with Bori Police Station, District Parbhani, alleging that she has

two sons, out of which one son is residing at Pune with his family. His

house at Varna was vacant, therefore, she let out the said house to

one Pashimiya for running chicken shop, on monthly rent of

Rs.1,000/-. However, on 21.02.2023, at about 05.30 p.m., the said

Pashumiya visited her and disclosed her that one Manik Rambhau

Ambure and his son Krushna Manik Ambure had visited the said

chicken shop and told him to close the said chicken shop. Therefore,

she visited the appellants to inquire why the chicken shop should be

2 of 4
(( 3 )) 919-Cri-Apeal-262-2023

closed. However, both the appellants/accused abused her by using

casteist language and also assaulted her grandson with fists and

blows. However, the said F.I.R. does not disclose the place where the

alleged casteist remarks were uttered. Therefore, as per the ratio laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karuppudayar Vs.

State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors, 2025(2)

CGLJ 316 and in the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Ors,

AIR 2025 SC 4083, I am of the view that the appellants / accused

have made out prima facie case to enlarge them on anticipatory bail

during the course of the trial.

5. Needless to say that on 27.03.2023, this Court passed an

order and granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the appellants /

accused on certain terms and conditions. During pendency of this

appeal, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet against the

present appellants / accused. Further, the learned counsel for the

appellants / accused placed on record the copy of the Rozanama in

Special Case No.78 of 2023 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Manikrao

Ramrao Ambhure), which shows that the charge is framed against the

appellants / accused and the matter is posted on 11.03.2026 for

evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

3 of 4
(( 4 )) 919-Cri-Apeal-262-2023

6. In view of above discussion, the impugned order dated

14.03.2023, passed by the learned Special Court, Parbhani on Exh.1

in Criminal Bail Application No.172 of 2023, is hereby quashed and

set aside. The appellants / accused are enlarged on ad interim

anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.03.2023, therefore the said

order shall in operation during pendency of the trial on the same

terms and conditions.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]

SMS

4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…