AMAR ASHOK KARANDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

         Digitally
         signed by
         DINESH
DINESH   SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA   Date:
         2026.08.21
         19:42:44
         +0530


                                                                              13-apeal-977-2025.odt


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 977 OF 2025

                      Amar A. Karande                                    …Appellant
                          V/s.
                      1.  State of Maharashtra
                      2.  Rutik P. Suryawanshi
                      3.  Akshay K. Lole                                 ...Respondents.

                                                    …………..
                      Mr. Raj Kamble a/w. Mr. Bhosale, Mr. Pankaj Dhotre and Mr. Kunal
                      Kedare for the Appellant.
                      Mr. V.N. Sagre, APP for the Respondent/State.
                      Mr. Atul Kakade i/by. Mr. Chandan Yadav for the Respondent Nos.2
                      and 3.
                                                    …………..

                                                    CORAM        :   N.R. BORKAR, J.
                                                    DATE         :   19.08.2026.

                      P.C. :

                      1.       This appeal 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 25 th November
                      2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Under the SC and ST
                      (POA) Act, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai below
                      Exhibit-8 in Special Case No. 222 of 2023.


                      2.       In the above special case, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are
                      facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 146,
                      147, 149, 326, 323, 509 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1),
                      135 of the Maharashtra Police Act & Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)
                      (w), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act


                      Dinesh S. Sherla                     1/3
                                                              13-apeal-977-2025.odt


3.         By the order impugned, the Special Court has granted
regular bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3.


4.         I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel for contesting
respondent Nos.2 & 3.


5.         Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not in custody, still the Special
Court entertained their application for regular bail. It is further
submitted that the Special Court has very mechanically granted
the bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is therefore, submitted that
the order impugned need to be set aside.


6.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting
respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that as there was no need of
custodial interrogation of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and thus they
were not arrested during the course of investigation. It is
submitted that thus after filing of charge-sheet they filed an
application for regular bail. It is submitted that the trial Court
while granting bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3 has considered the
entire material on record. It is submitted that the charges are
already framed and the trial is at the stage of recording evidence.
It    is     submitted   that   considering   the   overall     facts       and
circumstances, the present appeal may not be entertained.


7.          The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits


Dinesh S. Sherla                       2/3
                                                        13-apeal-977-2025.odt


that if the accused were not arrested during the course of
investigation, and after filing of charge-sheet they move an
application for regular bail, the same can be entertained by the
Court without taking them in custody. In support of the said
submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr1.


8.       I have perused the first information report. The main
allegations are against the co-accused Jitendra Suryawanshi and
Machindra Suryawanshi. Both of them were arrested. Admittedly,
respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not arrested during the course of
investigation. The trial Court, therefore, after filing of the charge-
sheet, has rightly entertained their application without taking
them in custody. Considering the overall facts and circumstances,
I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the
Appeal is dismissed.


                                             [N.R.BORKAR, J.]




1    (2022) 1 SCC (Cri.) 153

Dinesh S. Sherla                    3/3