Bombay High Court

HARSHAD @ HARSHAL BALASAHEB KHALADKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 17 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted anticipatory bail with specified conditions.

Summary

The appellant, Harshad Khaladkar, filed an appeal under Section 14‑A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging the Additional Sessions Judge’s order rejecting his anticipatory bail application in a case involving alleged caste‑based assault and threats. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co‑accused attempted to strangle a scheduled‑caste victim and threatened her and her daughter, charging him under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC & ST Act. The appellant contended that the FIR was false, citing another FIR showing the victim was at a police station at the time, and argued that the charge‑sheet had already been filed, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. The court examined the FIR, found merit in the appellant’s submissions, and noted that the bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act did not preclude the appeal. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the earlier order, and granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond, sureties, a restriction on entering Yavat Police Station’s jurisdiction for one year, and a four‑week period to relocate.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC & ST Act.
Whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail in this case.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 110, 115(2), 332(a), 333, 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 74, 75

Subjects

anticipatory bail
SC/ST Act
caste based violence
bail conditions
Section 18 bar
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND 16-apeal-735-25 .odt
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA Date:
2026.08.24
15:33:02
+0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2025

Harshad @ Harshal Balasaheb Khaladkar …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.

Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3
16-apeal-735-25 .odt

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident,
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 with ulterior
motive false FIR came to be lodged against the appellant. 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-735-25 .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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…