SHRIDHAR BHAGWAT DHAWALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42797




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                28 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2026

                                  SHRIDHAR BHAGWAT DHAWALE
                                              VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                 ...
           Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for Appellant
           Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent/State
           Ms. D. S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (appointed)

                                                            CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                            DATED   : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    Appellant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 83/2026,

           registered with Dharashiv Police Station, District Dharashiv, for the offences

           punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of

           the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘BNS’), and under Sections 3(1)(r)

           and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

           Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘Atrocities Act’).


           2.    First Information Report indicates that an incident had occurred on

           04.03.2026, in which the present Appellant is said to have abused the

           Informant over his caste. There is an allegation against the co-accused as well

           as the present Appellant of causing assault on the Informant and his wife.




           28 APEAL 584.2026.odt                                                      1 of 4
3.    Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that there is inordinate and

unexplained delay in lodging of the First Information Report, as the incident

had allegedly occurred on 04.03.2026, whereas the report came to be lodged

on 11.03.2026. It is his submission that the incident in question had not

occurred in public view and, as such, the provisions of the Atrocities Act have

no application to the present case. It is his submission that, considering the

dispute between the parties, the possibility of over-implication cannot be

ruled out.


4.    Learned APP and learned Advocate for the Informant opposed the grant

of any relief to the Appellant by referring to the allegations against him in the

First Information Report. According to them, the said allegations in the First

Information Report get corroboration from the statements of the eye-

witnesses. Learned APP referred to the injury certificates on record indicating

that the Informant as well as his wife had sustained injuries. According to

them, the offence under the Atrocities Act is made out and, as such,

considering the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the Appellant is

not entitled to pre-arrest bail.


5.    Perusal of the First Information Report indicates that there is an

allegation against the present Appellant that he abused the Informant over his

caste. Though statements of witnesses have been recorded, the said


28 APEAL 584.2026.odt                                                      2 of 4
statements are totally inconsistent with the statement of the Informant. This

makes the said allegation doubtful. Insofar as the allegation against the

Appellant with regard to assault on the wife of the Informant is concerned,

the injury certificate indicates that she sustained a single injury.


6.    Prima facie, this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned

Advocate for the Appellant that the offence in question had not occurred in a

public view and, therefore, the provisions of the Atrocities Act may not get

attracted to the present case. Once such a finding is recorded, the bar created

under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is not applicable. Having regard to the

aforesaid facts and, more particularly, the supplementary statement of the

Informant, which creates a possibility of over-implication, the Appellant is

entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the following order:

                                      ORDER

             (i)     Appeal is allowed.

             (ii) In the event of arrest of Appellant in connection with
             Crime No. 83/2026, registered with Dharashiv Police Station,
             District Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections
             118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the
             Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)
             (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
             (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he shall be released on bail on
             furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand
             only) with one solvent surety in the like amount.

             (iii)   He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.



28 APEAL 584.2026.odt                                                        3 of 4
            (iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
            whatsoever.

            (v) He further directed to cooperate the investigating
            agency for further investigation.

            (vi) The fees of the appointed Advocate is quantified at Rs.
            10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).

7.    Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.



                                                  ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




28 APEAL 584.2026.odt                                                  4 of 4