Bombay High Court
SANDIP DATTATRAY SHELARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted anticipatory bail on conditions, setting aside the order rejecting his bail application.
Summary
The appellant, Sandip D. Shelar, an advocate, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 14-A of the SC & ST Act after being implicated in a FIR alleging assault and caste-based threats against a scheduled caste victim. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused attempted to strangle the victim and threatened her and her daughter. The appellant contended that the FIR was false, arising from his representation of other accused, and pointed to another FIR showing the victim was at the police station at the time. The court, after reviewing the FIRs and noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed, found merit in the appellant's submissions and granted anticipatory bail with conditions, setting aside the lower court’s order. The appeal was allowed, bail was granted on a personal bond with sureties, and the appellant was barred from the jurisdiction of Yavat Police Station for one year.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellant under Section 14-A of the SC & ST Act despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
- Whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail in this case.
- Whether the filing of a charge-sheet negates the necessity for custodial interrogation of the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 110, 115(2), 332(a), 333, 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 74, 75
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A, 18, 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va), 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC & ST Act
- scheduled caste
- false FIR
- advocate
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail conditions
- jurisdiction restriction
Judgment
DINESH
SADANAND
SHERLA
Digitally signed by
DINESH SADANAND 16-apeal-599-25.odt
SHERLA
Date: 2026.08.24
15:18:47 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2025
Sandip D. Shelar …Appellant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents.
…………..
Mr. Aakash R. Pandey for the Appellant.
Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Amit Icham for Respondent No.2.
…………..
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 17.08.2026.
P.C. :
1. This appeal filed under Section 14-A of the of the Scheduled
Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for
short “SC & ST Act”) takes exception to the order dated 13th May
2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati
below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 371 of 2025.
2. By the order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed by the
present appellant, who is apprehending his arrest in C.R. No. 362
of 2025 registered at Yavat Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 74, 75, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3),
3(5), 110, 332 (a), 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) & 6 of the SC &
ST Act.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident,
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3
16-apeal-599-25.odt
which took place on 18.04.2025 at about 12.30 am, the present
appellant and other co-accused came to the house of the victim,
who belongs to the scheduled caste. It is alleged that they told the
victim to take back the first information report lodged by her
against Nikhil Damodare and Akshay Patole. It is alleged that as
she refused to do so they tried to strangulate the victim. It is
further alleged that the victim and her daughter were threatened
and abused on their caste.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
is an Advocate. It is submitted that false report came to be lodged
against the appellant as he represented Nikhil Damodare and
Akshay Patole in the Court. It is submitted that another FIR in
Crime No.355 of 2025 lodged by the victim shows that at the time
of alleged incident in the present crime, she was at Yavat Police
Station. It is submitted that the prosecution has already filed the
charge-sheet and that there is no need of custodial interrogation
of the appellant.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State and
learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appellant is
involved in serious crime. It is submitted that in view of the bar
contained in Section 18 of the SC and ST Act, the present appeal
may not be entertained.
Dinesh S. Sherla 2/3
16-apeal-599-25.odt
7. I have perused the FIR in Crime No.355 of 2025. Prima facie,
there appears to be substance in the submissions of learned
counsel for the appellant. Considering the said fact and as the
prosecution has already filed the charge-sheet, I am inclined to
release the appellant on anticipatory bail on certain conditions. In
the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 13th May 2025 is hereby set
aside.
(iii) In the event of arrest of the appellant in C.R. No. 362 of
2025 registered at Yavat Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 74, 75, 115(2), 352, 351(2),
351(3), 3(5), 110, 332 (a), 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)
(va) & 6 of the SC & ST Act, he shall be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(iv) The appellant shall not enter into the jurisdiction of
Yavat Police Station for a period of one year.
(vi) Time of four weeks is granted to the appellant to shift
outside the jurisdiction of Yavat Police Station.
8. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 3/3
Checking your session…