ARAV RAVINDRA GHODERAO THROUGH RAVINDRA DASHRATH GHODERAOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                         3-apeal-537-26.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.537 OF 2026

Arav Ravindra Ghoderao
through Ravindra D. Ghoderao                      …Appellant
     V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                   ...Respondents.
                            …………..
Mr. Ravi Kamble for the Appellant.
Mr.Mayur Sonavane, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Ranjit G. Jadhav (through V.C.) a/w Mr. Jay R. Raundale for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
                            …………..
                             CORAM        :   N.R. BORKAR, J.
                             DATE         :   18.09.2026.

P.C. :

1.            The Appellant herein is the first informant in Crime

No.80 of 2026 registered at Yeola City Police Station, Yeola for the

offences punishable under Sections 351, 351(2) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2.            Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are the accused in the

aforesaid crime. By the Order impugned in this Appeal the learned

Additional Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to

Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3.            I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and


Priyanka                            1/2
                                                                3-apeal-537-26.odt


learned counsel for contesting Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4.          The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the

learned    Additional    Sessions   Judge   has    erred   in      granting

anticipatory bail to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 by observing that the

incident did not occur in public view. It is submitted that the said

observation is incorrect as the F.I.R. shows that it did occur in

public view. It is submitted that the impugned Order, therefore

needs to be set aside.

5.          On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent

Nos.2 and 3 has supported the impugned Order. It is further

submitted that now the investigation is over and prosecution has

already filed the charge-sheet. It is submitted that considering the

facts and circumstances the Appeal be dismissed.

6.          The prima facie finding recorded in the Order impugned

about public    view does not        appear   to   be perverse.            The

prosecution has already filed the charge-sheet. In that view of the

matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned Order.

The Appeal is dismissed.



                                              [N.R.BORKAR, J.]


Priyanka                             2/2