Jambu Vakil Aade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jambu Vakil Aade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned order dated 09.10.2025 quashed and set aside; appellants, if arrested in connection with FIR No.277/2025, to be released on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one solvent surety/security in the like amount, on conditions: (i) attendance at the concerned police station every Monday at 11:30 a.m. until filing of the charge-sheet, and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer; (ii) no contact with or pressure on witnesses or the informant; (iii) no entry into the territorial jurisdiction of village Bhatsawangi (Tala/Taluka and District Hingoli) until filing of the charge-sheet, and residential addresses to be given to the Investigating Officer. Legal aid fees of respondent No.3's counsel to be quantified and paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee, Bench at Aurangabad.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail in Crime/FIR No.277/2025 and whether the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 rejecting their anticipatory bail application should be quashed and set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

The instant appeal deserves to be allowed by granting anticipatory bail to the appellants on certain conditions.

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the unexplained delay in registering the FIR, the absence of any motive or intention apparent on the face of the FIR, the near-completion of the investigation (only filing of the charge-sheet remaining), and the absence of any pointed-out misuse of the ad-interim protection, custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required.

Key takeaways

The incident of 24.09.2025 was reported to the police on 27.09.2025, and there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution for the delay caused in registering the FIR.ratio¶24
A bare perusal of the entire FIR reveals that there is no motive or intention as to why the appellants suddenly started assaulting and abusing the informant.ratio¶26
It was not pointed out by the learned APP or the learned advocate for respondent No.3/informant that the appellants misused the facility of ad-interim protection granted by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad), Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2025, decided 24 December 2025 by Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J. (neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:37367) — Anticipatory bail — Atrocities Act. Appellants sought pre-arrest bail in Crime/FIR No.277/2025, Basamba Police Station, Taluka and District Hingoli, registered 27.09.2025 under Ss.351(2), 3(5), 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Ss.3(1)(s), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the report of respondent No.3/informant (Nandu Tukaram Bodakhe), who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe; the FIR alleges that on 24.09.2025, when he enquired about a quarrel, the appellants pelted stones, slapped him and his brother-in-law, abused them in filthy language and by referring to their tribe. Their anticipatory bail application (Crl. Bail Appln. No.451/2025) was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli on 09.10.2025; this Court had granted ad-interim protection on 15.10.2025 while issuing notice. Held, allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned order: the three-day delay in lodging the FIR is unexplained by the prosecution; the FIR discloses no motive or intention for the alleged assault and abuse; the investigation is almost complete with only filing of the charge-sheet remaining; and no misuse of the interim protection was pointed out — hence custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required. Bail granted on PR bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount, with conditions of weekly police-station attendance (every Monday, 11:30 a.m.) until filing of the charge-sheet, no contact with or pressure on witnesses/informant, and abstention from the territorial jurisdiction of village Bhatsawangi (Tanda) until filing of the charge-sheet. Observations are prima facie only and shall not influence the Trial Court.

1 918apeal782o25 anti bail

2025:BHC-AUG:37367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2025

JAMBU VAKIL AADE AND ANKUR VAKIL AADE VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Shri Kale Amol G., Advocate for the Appellants. Ms. A.S. Mantri, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Ms. Awchar Shilpa L., Advocate for Respondent No.3.

CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

DATE : 24 December 2025

P. C. :-

By this appeal, the appellants are praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, in Criminal Bail Application No.451/2025 whereby, the said application preferred by the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected.

The aforesaid anticipatory bail application was preferred in Crime bearing FIR No.277/2025 registered on 27.09.2025 with Basamba Police Station, Taluka and District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 3(5),

2 918apeal782o25 anti bail

118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1) (s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Atrocities Act’). The FIR came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.3/ informant (Nandu Tukaram Bodakhe).

Through this appeal, the appellants are praying for grant of anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime. While issuing notice on 15.10.2025 by this Court, the appellants are granted interim protection of anticipatory bail.

The aforesaid Crime No.277/2025 is registered on the basis of the report lodged by respondent No.3/ informant stating therein that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and on 24.09.2025, when he along with his brother-in-law (Bhagwan Maroti Pandhare) were going towards his agricultural field on motorbike, at that time, they saw that the group of persons were quarreling with each other. When respondent No.3/ informant tried to enquire as to what is going on, the appellants are alleged to have pelted stones towards them, also slapped them and abused them in filthy language as well as abused them by referring to their tribe. On the basis of these allegations, the

3 918apeal782o25 anti bail

said FIR came to be lodged on 27.09.2025.

The learned advocate for the appellants submits that entire allegations in the FIR are concocted, baseless and the said FIR is lodged just to harass the appellants. According to him, bare perusal of the FIR would itself reveal that there is no motive or intention on the part of the appellants to assault or abuse the informant. The learned advocate further submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated. There is delay in lodging the FIR. No prima facie case is made out against the appellants. The appellants are rightly granted ad-interim protection by this Court and therefore, same may kindly be confirmed and the appellants be released on anticipatory bail.

Per contra , the learned APP strongly opposed the instant appeal. She submits that investigation is almost completed and mere filing of the charge-sheet is remained. The appellants are involved in serious crime against the members of the Scheduled Tribe community. Investigation papers placed before this Court also contain the injury certificate of the informant, which shows that he has received simple injuries. The statement of the informant under Section 183 of the BNSS is also

4 918apeal782o25 anti bail

recorded. The tribe certificate of the informant as that of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe is also obtained by the Investigating Officer. The learned APP, therefore, prayed for rejection of this appeal.

I have also heard Ms.Awachar appearing for respondent No.3/ informant, who has adopted the submissions of the learned APP and in addition thereto, she submitted that if the appellants are released on bail, they would threaten prosecution witnesses. According to her, the offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act is clearly made out. As such, she also strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants.

After having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after going through the material available on record including investigation papers made available to me, it is revealed that the incident of 24.09.2025 came to be reported to the police on 27.09.2025. There is no explanation on the part of the prosecution as regards the delay caused in registering the FIR. Even otherwise, the contents of FIR would reveal that the incident has taken place where certain persons were quarreling with each other and when the informant had gone to enquire as to

5 918apeal782o25 anti bail

why the said persons were quarreling, at that time, the appellants are alleged to have abused and assaulted the informant. A bare perusal of the entire FIR would reveal that there is no motive or intention as to why the appellants suddenly started assaulting and abusing the informant. Moreover, investigation in the instant crime is almost over. So also, it is not pointed out by the learned APP as well as the learned advocate for respondent No.3/ informant that the appellants have misused the facility of adinterim protection granted by this Court. In such circumstances, I am prima facie of the view that custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed by granting anticipatory bail to the appellants on certain conditions. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

a) The Criminal Appeal stands allowed.

b) The impugned order dated 09.10.2025 is quashed

and set aside.

c) In the event of arrest of the appellants in connection

6 918apeal782o25 anti bail

with Crime bearing FIR No.277/2025 registered on 27.09.2025 with Basamba Police Station, Taluka and District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 3(5), 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, they shall be released on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand Only] each with one solvent surety/ security in the like amount.

d) The appellants shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday at 11:30 am until filing of the chargesheet and after filing of the charge-sheet, as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

e) The appellants shall not try to contact or pressurize the witnesses or the informant, in any manner whatsoever.

f) The appellants shall not enter territorial jurisdiction of village Bhatsawangi (Tanda), Taluka and District Hingoli, till the filing of the charge sheet and they shall give their residential addresses to the concerned Investigating Officer.

The learned advocate for respondent No.3/

7 918apeal782o25 anti bail

informant is appointed through the Legal Aid. Her fees shall be quantified and paid to her by the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee, Bench at Aurangabad, in accordance with law.

However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal and the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same.

kps