Bombay High Court
REENA SHAILESH MISHRAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The appellate court held that the anticipatory bail bar under Sections 18 and 18‑A does not apply as the appellant was not prima facie linked to the assault, and therefore allowed the appeal and granted bail.
Summary
The appellant, Reena Shailesh Mishra, sought anticipatory bail after a dispute over a public water tap allegedly led to an assault and caste‑based abuse against a Scheduled Caste informant. The prosecution charged her under several IPC offences (324, 323, 504, 427, 34) and under the SC & ST Act (sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)), invoking the bar on bail under sections 18 and 18‑A of the Act. The appellant contended that a cross‑FIR existed, the caste‑abuse allegations were false, and the assault was not attributable to her, noting that a chargesheet had already been filed against co‑accused. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application, relying on the statutory bar. On appeal, the High Court observed that the FIR did not link the appellant to the assault, the incident did not occur in public view, and the prosecution had already proceeded against others, and therefore set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail on a personal bond.
Issues considered
- Whether the bar under Sections 18 and 18‑A of the SC & ST Act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail in this case.
- Whether the allegations of caste‑based abuse and assault are sufficient to deny anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 427, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 18, 18-A, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC & ST Act
- caste atrocities
- assault
- public view
- Section 18 bar
- bail bond
Judgment
1 14-APEAL 640-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.640 OF 2024
Reena Shailesh Mishra … Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
-----
Mr. Namdev Gore i/by Aniruddha Kulkarni for the Appellant.
Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Komal P. a/w Rahul Salve i/by Dhiraj Bansode for Respondent No.2.
API Bansode, Manpada PS is present.
-----
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER 2026
Digitally
P.C. :
signed by
MUGDHA
MUGDHA MANOJ
MANOJ PARANJAPE
PARANJAPE Date:
2026.10.01
18:48:52 1. This Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the
+0530
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 takes exception to
the order dated 17th May 2024 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kalyan in Anticipatory Bail Application No.908 of 2024.
2. By the impugned order, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has
rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by the present Appellant,
who is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.600 of 2024 registered at
Manpada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324,
323, 504, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC & ST Act”).
Mugdha 1 of 3
2 14-APEAL 640-24.doc
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, which
took place on 16th April 2024, a dispute arose between the family of the
first informant on one side and the family of the Appellant on the other
side on account of fetching of water from the public tap. It is alleged that
during the said dispute the present Appellant and other co-accused
assaulted the first informant by fighter punch. It is further alleged that
caste abuses were hurled at the first informant and her family members,
who belongs to Scheduled Caste, with a view to humiliate them.
4. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Learned APP for
Respondent No.1-State and Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is a cross FIR
in relation to the alleged incident. It is submitted that the allegations in
relation to the abuses on caste are falsely made against the present
Appellant and other co-accused just to involve them in a serious offence. It
is submitted that the alleged assault by fighter punch is not attributed to
the present Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the
prosecution has already filed chargesheet against the co-accused.
6. On the other hand, Learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and
Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submit that there are specific
allegations in relation to the offences punishable under the provisions of
the SC & ST Act. It is submitted that there is a bar under Sections 18 and
18-A of the SC & ST Act to entertain the anticipatory bail application. It is
submitted that the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has thus rightly
rejected the anticipatory bail application of the present Appellant.
Mugdha 2 of 3
3 14-APEAL 640-24.doc
7. I have perused the FIR. The assault by fighter punch is not
attributed to the present Appellant. Prima-facie the alleged incident does
not appear to have occurred in a public view. The prosecution has already
filed chargesheet against the other co-accused. Considering the overall
facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the Appellant
on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is set aside.
iii. In the event of the arrest of the Appellant in Crime No.600 of
2024 registered at Manpada Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 427 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, she shall be released on
bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties
in the like amount.
8. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
Mugdha 3 of 3
Checking your session…