Bombay High Court
MADHUKAR PANDURANG ADLING AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The Court held that because the FIR indicated the alleged offence was not committed in public view, Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not apply and the interim relief to the appellants is confirmed.
Summary
The appellants challenged the order granting them interim relief in a case under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arguing that the FIR showed the alleged offence was not committed in public view and therefore Section 18's embargo should not apply. The State contended that the investigation was complete, a charge‑sheet had been filed, and the interim relief should be confirmed. The Court examined the FIR and noted that the alleged abuse was indeed private, rendering Section 18 inapplicable. It also observed that the investigation was concluded and the appellants had cooperated throughout. Relying on its earlier order of 2 April 2025, the Court found no reason to disturb the interim relief and allowed the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appointed legal‑aid counsel was directed to be paid fees as per the High Court Legal‑aid Services Committee rules.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged offence under the Atrocities Act was committed in public view, thereby attracting the embargo of Section 18.
- Whether the interim relief granted to the appellants should be confirmed in view of the completed investigation and filing of charge‑sheet.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Atrocities Act
- Section 18
- interim relief
- appeal
- criminal procedure
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
- investigation
- charge‑sheet
Judgment
30 APEAL 377-24-CR.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.377 OF 2024
Madhukar Pandurang Adling and anr. …Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents
Mr. Prashant S. Hagare i/by Ms. Ujjwala Khamane, for the
Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Satyam Surana (Appointed through legal-aid), for the
Respondent No.2.
Mr. A. S. Gawai, APP, for the State.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 17th JANUARY, 2026.
PC:-
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the First
Information Report (FIR) itself indicates that the offence under the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act (Atrocities Act) has not been committed in the public view. It
is his further submission that liberty of the Appellants were
protected by order dated 10th April, 2024. According to him,
having regard to the status of the proceedings, there is no
propriety in not confirming the interim relief.
PRIYA
RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Digitally signed by
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Date: 2026.01.20
10:24:03 +0530
Page 1 of 2
th
17 January, 2026.
30 APEAL 377-24-CR.DOC
3. Learned APP and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2
opposed the appeal.
4. Learned APP, on instructions, makes statement that on
conclusion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed.
5. Prima facie perusal of the FIR indicates that the alleged
incident of Appellants abusing the Informant over the cause has
not been committed in the public view. As such, the embargo
created by Section 18 of the Atrocities Act has no application to the
present case.
6. Undeniably investigation of the crime is completed.
Appellants have participated in the investigation process.
7. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 2 nd April,
2025, this Court finds no reason not to confirm the said order.
8. Appeal stands allowed.
9. The appointed counsel be paid fees as per rules by the High
Court Legal-aid Services Committee.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 2 of 2
th
17 January, 2026.
Checking your session…