Abhishek Ramkumar Dubey v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Nov 2025APEAL/1006/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 18 SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bar; 'public view' requirement for caste-based insult; abuse witnessed by informant's friends/acquaintance, not independent witnesses; Hitesh Verma (2020) 10 SCC 710 applied; Kiran (AIR Online 2025 SC 809) distinguished; investigation over with charge-sheet filed; Bombay High Court Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 2025; R. M. Joshi J.; 20 November 2025; Abhishek Ramkumar Dubey v. State of Maharashtra; P.R. bond Rs.15,000/-; IPC 420 406 468 34; SC & ST Act 3(1)(r),(s),(zc).

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; the anticipatory bail application filed before the Trial Court stands allowed and, in the event of arrest, the appellant is to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. ¶order

Abhishek Ramkumar Dubey vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶order

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged caste-based insults were made in 'public view', i.e. in the presence of independent persons and not of the informant's friends or relatives, so as to attract the bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The witnesses to the alleged caste abuse were not independent: Ajay Awate admits he is the informant's friend, and Abhijit Ingle acknowledges acquaintance with the informant for the last 15 years; having no independent purpose to be at the spot, they accompanied the informant because of their closeness, so the incident was not committed before independent persons.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Following Hitesh Verma (Supreme Court), an insult over caste attracts the offence only if committed within 'public view', i.e. in the presence of independent persons and not in the presence of relatives or friends of the informant; since the alleged abuse was witnessed by the informant's friends/acquaintance, the embargo of Section 18 of the SC & ST Act does not arise. Kiran (Supreme Court) was distinguished as dealing with a case where no defence that the bystanders were friends or relatives of the informant was raised.

¶6

Key takeaways

Investigation into the crime is over with filing of the charge-sheet and, apart from the allegation of caste abuse, no other allegation is made against the appellant; hence the appeal is allowed, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed, and the appellant is to be released on arrest on a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 2025, R. M. Joshi, J., decided 20 November 2025: Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 632 of 2022 (Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station; IPC ss. 420, 406, 468 r/w s. 34; SC & ST Act ss. 3(1)(r), (s), (zc)). Held: the two witnesses to the alleged caste abuse were the informant's friend (Ajay Awate) and a 15-year acquaintance (Abhijit Ingle) with no independent purpose at the spot, so the insult was not within 'public view'; applying Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Section 18 SC & ST Act bar did not apply; Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (AIR Online 2025 SC 809) distinguished because there no defence of friendship/relationship of the bystanders was raised. Investigation was complete (charge-sheet filed) and no other allegation existed against the appellant. Appeal allowed; anticipatory bail granted on P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶1

2-APEAL-1006-2025 (CR).doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1006 OF 2025

¶4

Abhishek Ramkumar Dubey … Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶5

Ms. Neha Bhavsar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. A. S. Gavai, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Nilesh Navale i/b. Mr. Susmit Phatale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶6

PSI-Shri A. S. Pawar, Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, present.

¶7

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 20^th NOVEMBER, 2025.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This appeal is against the rejection of anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant in connection with Crime No.632 of 2022 registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 with Sections 3(1)(r),(s), (zc) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (for short “SC & ST Act”).

¶10

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM

¶11

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2025.11.21 15:00:14 +0530

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant apart from drawing attention of the Court to the facts of the case, essentially argued that the alleged statement in respect of the caste of the informant is said to have been made in presence of Abhijit Ingle and Ajay Awate. It is her contention that

¶13

1/5

¶14

2-APEAL-1006-2025 (CR).doc

¶15

Shubhada S Kadam

¶16

from the statement of Ajay, it can be seen that he admits himself to be the friend of the informant, whereas Abhijit states acquaintance with the informant for last 15 years. She argues that unless this witness was friend of the informant, he had no reason to accompany him to the spot of the incident, since he himself had otherwise no reason to be at spot.

¶17

In support of her contention, learned counsel for the appellant, has relied on the following judgments :

¶18

1. Hitesh Verma versus The State of Uttrakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710;

¶19

2. Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan and ors. versus The State of Maharashtra 2025 (1) BomCR. (Cri.) 444;

¶20

3. Mahesh Sakharam Patole and ors. versus The State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1601;

¶21

4. Balu B. Galande versus The State of Maharashtra 2006 SCC Online Bom 1598;

¶22

5. V. P. Shetty versus Senior Inspector of Police, Colaba, reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 3560;

¶23

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra) , it is argued that the alleged offence cannot be said to have been committed in the presence of independent witnesses, as the incident is stated to have occurred only in the presence of friends. It is further argued that the investigation in the present crime is practically over, and except for the allegation of abuses hurled over caste, no other allegation has been made against the appellant.

¶24

2/5

¶25

2-APEAL-1006-2025 (CR).doc

¶26

Shubhada S Kadam

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the appeal on the ground that there is specific statement in FIR with regard to the abuses hurled over the caste made against respondent No.2 to insult him and therefore, offence under the Act is made out. It is further submitted that this incident has been witnessed by two independent persons and, therefore, there is no question of any anticipatory bail being granted to the appellant in view of bar created by Section 18 of SC and ST Act. To support his submissions, he relies upon the decision of Hon’bel Supreme Court in Kiran versus Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and nar. AIR Online 2025 SC 809.

¶28

Learned APP also opposed the appeal by contending that in view of provision of Section 18 of the SC and ST Act coupled with allegation made by the informant, this is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

¶29

There cannot be any dispute made with regard to the proposition sought to be canvassed that in case the offence has been committed in public view, the embargo created by Section 18 of the SC and ST Act would apply. For that purpose, however, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra) such references i.e. insult is to be caused in the presence of independent person and not in the presence of relatives or friends of the informant.

¶30

3/5

¶31

Shubhada S Kadam

¶32

2-APEAL-1006-2025 (CR).doc

¶33

Here in this case though it is sought to be canvassed by respondent No.2 that witnesses were not his friends, however, on the face of it, the statement of Ajay Awate indicates that he admits himself to be the friend of the informant. So also the statement of Abhijit shows that there is acquaintance between them for last 15 years. This Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that, unless the informant and the said witness were close, there was no reason for this witness to accompany him to the place of the incident, particularly when this witness had no independent purpose to be present there.

¶34

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra) has clearly held that the offence of insulting a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would be attracted if the act is committed within ‘public view’ and consequently embargo of Section 18 of the SC and ST Act would come in play. As against this, in the judgment cited in Kiran (supra ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the situation wherein the insult over the caste has been done in presence of number of persons. Pertinently therein no defense was taken with regard to the said persons to be friends or relatives of the informant. Having regard to this fact, a distinction could be drawn with regard to the applicability of the said judgment to the present case.

¶35

Having regard to the fact that the witnesses who claimed that the incident of abuses hurled on the caste against the informant are

¶36

4/5

¶37

2-APEAL-1006-2025 (CR).doc

¶38

Shubhada S Kadam

¶39

apparently friends of the informant, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) , the embargo to Section 18 of the SC and ST Act would not arise. Apart from this, now it is admitted position that investigation into the crime is over with filing of charge-sheet. There is no other allegation against the appellant. Hence, the following order :

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

The appeal is allowed.

¶42

Anticipatory Bail Application filed before the Trial Court stands allowed.

¶43

In the event of arrest, the appellant be released on bail on furnishing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

¶44

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶45

5/5

Abhishek Ramkumar Dubey v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Ramkumar Dubey v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Harishchandra Satam and Anr. vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thane (West) vs Smt. Vandana Ashok Patil and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Santosh Kisan Sarode and Anr.

Sumit Satish Mayyar vs State of Maharashtra

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs Mr. Mohadin Akbar Mujavar and Ors.

Smt. Sneha Naresh Tekwani and Ors. vs Ravi Premchand Vanjani and Anr.