Disposed¶31

Sachin Shalu Bhojane and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2025APEAL/717/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail — confirmation of interim relief after charge-sheet; Atrocities Act offence not made out — FIR shows no caste-based commission; Section 18 Atrocities Act embargo held inapplicable; four-day FIR delay and counter-report by appellant No.2 (12-05-2025) — false implication not ruled out; interim relief of 18-07-2025 (Shivkumar Dige, J.) confirmed; Crime No.358/2025, Vithhalwadi Police Station; BNS 2023 ss.74, 79, 333, 351(3), 352, 3(5); SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 ss.3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) (va) and S.18; Bombay HC Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 2025; R. M. Joshi, J.; decided 15-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of the interim relief granted on 18 July 2025 (by this Court, Coram: Shivkumar Dige, J.) to the appellants. ¶31

Sachin Shalu Bhojane and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Confirmation of the interim relief granted on 18 July 2025 (by this Court, Coram: Shivkumar Dige, J.) to the appellants.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail (i.e., confirmation of the interim relief) in connection with Crime No. 358 of 2025 despite the rejection of their anticipatory bail application and the offences alleged under the Atrocities Act. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

There is a delay of four days in lodging the FIR, and there is material on record that appellant No. 2 had lodged a report against the brother-in-law of the informant on 12 May 2025; thus the possibility of false implication is not ruled out.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the FIR does not indicate that the offence in question was committed because the informant belongs to a scheduled caste community.

¶24

Key takeaways

Since no offence is made out under the Atrocities Act, the embargo of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not apply to the present case, even accepting that there are antecedents against the appellants.ratio¶29
In view of the filing of the charge-sheet, there is no propriety in sending the appellants behind bars.ratio¶29
In view of completion of the investigation, there is no reason not to confirm the interim relief granted to the appellants.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 2025 (R. M. Joshi, J.), decided 15 December 2025: Anticipatory bail — Atrocities Act. Appellants Sachin Shalu Bhojane, Ganesh alias Aakash Shalu Bhojane and Sabastin Sunder Pille challenged the order dated 12 June 2025 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1321 of 2025 rejecting their anticipatory bail application in connection with Crime No. 358 of 2025 registered with Vithhalwadi Police Station for offences under Sections 74, 79, 333, 351(3), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court found: (i) perusal of the FIR does not indicate that the offence was committed because the informant belongs to a scheduled caste community; (ii) the FIR was lodged after a four-day delay and appellant No. 2 had lodged a report against the informant's brother-in-law on 12 May 2025, so the possibility of false implication was not ruled out. Consequently, no offence being made out under the Atrocities Act, the embargo of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act was held not applicable despite the appellants' antecedents. As investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, the Court saw no propriety in detaining the appellants; the interim relief granted on 18 July 2025 (Shivkumar Dige, J.) was confirmed and the appeal disposed of in those terms.

¶1

8-APEAL-717-2025 (CR).doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 717 of 2025

¶5

Sachin Shalu Bhojane

¶6

… Appellants

¶7

Ganesh alias Aakash Shalu Bhojane

¶8

Sabastin Sunder Pille

¶9

versus

¶10

1.The State of Maharashtra …. Respondents

¶11

Shivani Nilesh Sasane

¶12

Mr. Raju Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Appellants. Ms. Vilasini Subramanian, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

¶14

DATE : 15^th DECEMBER, 2025.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2025.12.15 17:53:04 +0530

¶17

This appeal is takes exception to the order dated 12^th June 2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1321 of 2025 rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellants in connection with Crime No.358 of 2025 registered with Vithhalwadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 79, 333, 351(3), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocities Act”).

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present FIR came to be lodged belatedly after four days of the alleged incident.

¶19

1/3

¶20

8-APEAL-717-2025 (CR).doc

¶21

Shubhada S Kadam

¶22

According to him, there is reason to believe that this report is lodged by way of a counter blast. In this regard, he drew attention of the Court to the FIR lodged by appellant No.2 against the brother-in-law of the informant on 12^th May 2025. Similarly, it is his contention that one more report which came to be lodged against the appellants on the same day bearing Crime No.352 of 2025. It is thus his contention that it is not possible that the accused were present at two different places at the same time. Finally, it is argued that from the FIR, it is not revealed that the appellants/accused had knowledge about the caste of the informant in order to attract the offences under the Atrocities Act.

¶23

Learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the appeal by contending that since the offence has been committed against a woman belonging to scheduled caste community, the offences under the Atrocities Act are attributed to the appellants. Learned APP, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, makes statement that the distance between two places where the incident has occurred on 12^th May 2025 at about 11.30 pm. is only 100 meters and hence, possibility of the accused having gone to the house of the informant is not ruled out. On the basis of instructions, a statement is made that the investigation into the crime is already complete and chargesheet is filed.

¶24

Perusal of the FIR does not indicate that the offence in question has been committed for the reason that the informant belongs to

¶25

2/3

¶26

8-APEAL-717-2025 (CR).doc

¶27

Shubhada S Kadam

¶28

scheduled caste community. There is delay of four days in lodging of the report. There is material on record to indicate that appellant No.2 had lodged report against the brother-in-law of the informant on 12^th May 2025. Thus possibility of false implication is not ruled out. It is further pertinent to note that his Court has granted interim relief to the appellants on 18^th July 2025 and pursuant to the direction to attend the concerned police station, they participated in the investigation.

¶29

In view of filing of charge-sheet, there is no propriety in sending them behind bar. Even accepting the fact that there are antecedents against the appellants, for want of any offence being made out under Atrocities Act, there is no embargo of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, which would be applicable to the present case.

¶30

In view of completion of investigation, there is no reason not to confirm the interim relief. Hence, the following order:

¶31

The order dated 18^th July 2025 passed by this Court (Coram : Shivkumar Dige, J.) stands confirmed. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

¶32

3/3

Sachin Shalu Bhojane and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Shalu Bhojane and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sukhdeo Siddharam Bansode vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Farukh Mansuri @ Mohd. Farukh Mansuri @ Mohd. Farukh Yasin Mansur @ Mohammad Farooq Yasin vs the State of Maharashtra

Khurshid Mohamadidu Aalam Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Logistics Thr. at Karta, P.D. Sharma vs Mai Mahadeo Gharat and Ors.

Sunil Logistics Thr. at Karta, P.D. Sharma vs Mai Mahadeo Gharat and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune vs Saifuddin Fakhruddin Shakir and Ors.