SALEEM AJMODDIN SHAIKH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                1                 44criapeal836.25



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2025


1.   Saleem s/o Ajmoddin Shaikh,
     Age; 29 years, Occ; Business,

2.   Aftab s/o Wahid Shaikh,
     Age; 20 years, Occ; Education,

3.   Muskan d/o Wahid Shaikh,
     Age; 21 years, Occ. Education,

4.   Shaheenbegum w/o Wahid Shaikh,
     Age; 41 years, Occ; Household,

     All r/o Kranti Nagar, Ambajogai,
     Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.                  ...APPELLANTS.


        VERSUS

1.   The State of Maharashtra,
     Through Superintendent of Police,
     Beed Tq. & Dist. Beed.

2.   The Police Inspector,
     Ambajogai City Police Station,
     Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.

3.   Shilpa Krian Naikwade,
     Age; 40 years, Occ. Labour,
     R/o; Krantinagar, Ambajogai,
     Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.               ...RESPONDENTS.


                                   ...
             Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Munde Sachin B.
          APP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State : Mr. R.D.Raut
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr.Kamble Shirish M., Mr.Bagate Sunil
Fakirrao, Mr.Wakode Amolkumar Samadhan, Mr.Kasare Pramod Ranba,
                                   ...


                             CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
                             DATE : 02.02.2026
                                 2                    44criapeal836.25



PER COURT :


1.          Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective

parties.


2.          By the present appeal filed under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (for short “the Atrocities Act”) r/w Section 482 of the Bhartiya

Nagarik    Suraksha   Sanhita,   2023,   the   appellants/accused        takes

exception to the order dated 28.10.2025, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai in Criminal Bail Application No.

502 of 2025, whereby, the learned trial Court declined to grant

anticipatory bail to the appellants in connection with Crime No. 492 of

2025, registered with Ambejogai City Police Station, District Beed.


3.          On the face of record, it appears that on 03.10.2025, the

respondent No. 3-informant lodged an oral report with Ambejogai City

Police Station, District Beed alleging that she and the accused/appellant

are neighbourers. A cow of accused Wahid Shaikh had attacked Shweta

the daughter of the informant, therefore, she asked the appellant No.4

Shahinbegum w/o Wahed Shaikh, to tie the cow and on that count on

01.10.2025 at about 10.00 p.m. appellants/accused assaulted her and

abused on her caste i.e. the appellants/accused were knowing that the

victim respondent No. 3 belongs to scheduled caste. The said incident

has occurred in front of the house of respondent No. 3. So also, all the

appellants/accused assaulted due to which the informant sustained
                                   3                         44criapeal836.25



injuries.   The appellants/accused No.1 Saleem Shaikh assaulted the

informant’s    husband    and     issued   life   threats.     The    neighbours,

Satyabhama Mahadev Kamble, Parshuram Laxman Shinde intervened

and separated the accused persons and the respondent No. 3. On the

basis of FIR, Crime No. 492 of 2025 has been registered against the

present appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Sections

115 (2), 352, 351(2), 3 (5), of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and

under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.


4.            The appellants had filed an application bearing Criminal Bail

Application No. 502 of 2025, before the Special Court, Ambejogai,

seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime no. 492 of 2025.


5.            On    28.10.2025,     the    learned      Additional        Sessions

Judge/Special Court, Ambejogai, passed the impugned order holding

that the alleged abusement on caste to the respondent No. 3-informant

has occurred in the public view, therefore, as per the ratio laid down in

the case of Kiran V. Rajukmar Jivraj Jain - AIR 2025, SC 4083 (equv.

Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024 SCC Online 2249), it is held that

the abusement to a member of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes

occurred within public view, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the

Atrocities Act, a bar is created under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure to enlarge the accused on bail.


6.            The learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed
                                      4                      44criapeal836.25



that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses

including the statement of Komal Mahadev Kamble, who stated that she

her brother Viahnu Mahadev Kamble, her sister Jaya Mahadev Kamble

are blind but they identify persons by their voice. Therefore, this witness

Komal Kamble cannot be relied on, as she had no occasion to see the

incident.   The   other     witnesses     are   there   to   just   implicate   the

appellants/accused and no such incident has occurred. So also

respondent No. 3 lodged the present FIR on 03.10.2025, when the

incident has allegedly occurred on 01.10.2025, at about 10.00 p.m.,

therefore, there is delay which falsify the incident. Therefore, the learned

counsel     appearing     for   the   appellants    prays    for    enlarging   the

appellants/accused on bail.


7.           Per-contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the application

on the ground that as per the FIR, the incident has occurred in front of

the house of the present respondent No. 3, abusing her on her caste at

the hands of the accused persons and the said incident was within the

public view. So also, the witnesses intervened and separated the

appellants/accused and the informant.            The Investigating Officer has

recorded the statement of witnesses, Satyabhama Mahadev Kamble,

Komal Mahadev Kamble and Parshuram Laxman Shinde and Shilpa

Kiran Naikwade and others. He further submits that on perusal of the

spot panchanama it appears that the incident of hurling abuses to the

informant/respondent No. 3 at the hands of accused persons has

occurred in front of the house of the respondent No.3 on the road of
                                  5                 44criapeal836.25



Lahuji Salve Chouk to the Water Tank Road.       The said incident has

occurred at 10.00 p.m. and it is witnessed by the people in the society,

therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.


8.          On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the respondent No. 3

informant specifically alleged about the occurrence of the incident of

abusement on her caste, at the hands of the accused persons occurred

in-front of her house. The spot panchanama drawn by the Investigating

Officer shows that the house of the respondent No. 3 is situated on road

and it passes from the Lahuji Salve Sqare to the Water Tank Road. The

appellants/accused are the neighbiours of the respondent No. 3 and the

said abusement on caste to the respondent No. 3 has occurred within

the public view.     The witnesses who intervened the quarrel and

separated the appellants and informant have categorically stated about

abusement to the informant/respondent No. 3 on her caste, at the hands

of the present appellants/accused. Therefore, considering the ratio laid

down in the case of Kiran V. Rajukmar Jivraj Jain (cited supra), since

the instant abusement on the caste to the respondent No. 3/informant

at the hands of the accused has occurred in front of informant’s house,

which comes within the ambit of public view.      Therefore, as per the

provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the bar is created under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the

appellants/accused on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the learned trial

Court passed the impugned order and declined to grant anticipatory bail,

which does not appear perverse, illegal and bad in law and no
                                  6                      44criapeal836.25



interference is called for at the hands of this Court.


9.           On 06.11.2025, this Court granted ad-interim anticipatory

bail to the appellants/accused, therefore, the said order is hereby

recalled.


10.          The appellants to surrender before the Investigating Officer

within a period of two weeks from today.


11.          Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.




                                      ( Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)




mahajansb/