Omkar Narayan Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Omkar Narayan Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail: in the event of arrest, the appellant to be released on bail in Crime No. 130 of 2024 on a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount (Order ii); the appellant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required (Order iii); the appellant shall not contact/influence, threaten or pressurize the complainant or otherwise tamper with prosecution evidence/witnesses (Order iv); all pending Applications disposed of (Order v).

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 130 of 2024, should be granted bail in appeal against the Special Court's rejection of his Bail Application. +2 more

Court's answer

The Appeal is allowed: in the event of arrest, the appellant Omkar Narayan Jadhav is to be released on bail in Crime No. 130 of 2024 registered with Jejuri Police Station, Pune Rural, on executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Ratio / Principle

The alleged incident of abusing the first informant on caste was at a public place or not is not mentioned in the FIR.

Key takeaways

Considering these facts (completed investigation, filed charge-sheet, and the FIR's silence on the public-place question), the custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Shivkumar Dige, J.), decided 27-06-2025 (corrected vide speaking-to-minutes order dated 05-08-2025) — Allowed. The Special Court had rejected the appellant's Bail Application; the appellant, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 130 of 2024 (Jejuri Police Station, Pune Rural) for offences under ss.143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and ss.3(1)(rs), 3(2)(va) SCST Act, sought bail (paras 1-2). Prosecution alleged that on 29-03-2024 the appellant abused the first informant on his caste and later, with co-accused, assaulted the first informant and his brother with a wooden rod; the appellant contended the caste-abuse incident was not at a public place and that the assault involved no caste abuse (para 3). Respondents opposed, citing six antecedents and alleging the appellant had pressurized the first informant to state no objection to bail before the Sessions Court (para 5). The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed (paras 4, 6); the Court observed that the FIR nowhere mentions whether the caste-abuse incident occurred at a public place (para 6) and held custodial interrogation of the appellant not required (para 7). Held: appeal allowed; in the event of arrest, release on bail in Crime No. 130 of 2024 on a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; appellant to attend the concerned Police Station as and when required; appellant not to contact/influence, threaten or pressurize the complainant or tamper with prosecution evidence/witnesses; pending applications disposed of (Order (i)-(v)).

12-APEAL-829-2024 (CR)-CORRECTED ORDER.DOCX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 829 OF 2024

Omkar Narayan Jadhav … Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w Mr. Priyesh More i/b Mr. Shivani Kondekar, for the Appellant.

Smt. Ranjana D. Humane, APP, for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Swaraj Jadhav, for the Respondent No.2.

Mr. Sarjerao Pujari, Jejuri Police Station, present.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 27^th JUNE, 2025

PC :-

The Special Court has rejected the Bail Application of the appellant.

The appellant is apprehending arrest, in connection with investigation of Crime No. 130 of 2024 registered with Jejuri Police Station, Pune Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and under Sections 3(1)(rs) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SCST Act’ for short).

(This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes order dated 5^th August, 2025)

REKHA PRAKASH PATIL

Page 1 of 4

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2025.08.07 18:41:21 +0530

12-APEAL-829-2024 (CR)-CORRECTED ORDER.DOCX

It is prosecution’s case that, on 29^th March, 2024 at 8:30 p.m., the appellant quarreled with the first informant and abused him on his caste. It is alleged that on same day at about 9:00 p.m. he along with co-accused assaulted the first informant and his brother with wooden rod. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the first incident in which there are allegations of abused on caste was not happened at public place. In second incident of assault, there are no allegations that the appellant abused the first informant on caste.

Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant. Hence, custodial interrogation is not required and requested to allow the Appeal.

It is the contention of the learned APP and learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 that the appellant had abused the first informant on caste at public place. Thereafter, he and co-accused assaulted the first informant. There are six antecedents against the appellant. In other matters when appellant was on bail, he committed this crime. If appellant released on anticipatory bail he may threaten the first informant and prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to dismiss the Appeal. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submitted that the first informant was

(This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes order dated 5^th August, 2025)

Page 2 of 4

Rekha Patil

12-APEAL-829-2024 (CR)-CORRECTED ORDER.DOCX

pressurized by the appellant to make a statement before the Sessions Court that he has no objection to allow the bail application. It shows that the appellant had threatened the first informant. Hence, he requested to dismiss the Appeal.

I have heard all learned counsel. Perused the FIR and documents produced on record. Charge-sheet is filed against the appellant. It shows that the investigation is completed. The alleged incident of abusing on caste to the first informant was in public place or not is not mentioned in the FIR.

Considering these facts, the custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required and I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is allowed.

(ii) In the event of arrest, the Appellant- Omkar Narayan Jadhav be released on bail in Crime No. 130 of 2024 registered with Jejuri Police Station, Pune Rural, on executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(iii) The Appellant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.

Page 3 of 4

(This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes order dated 5^th August, 2025)

Rekha Patil

12-APEAL-829-2024 (CR)-CORRECTED ORDER.DOCX

(iv) The Appellant shall not contact/influence or threaten or pressurize the complainant or otherwise

tamper with the prosecution evidence/witnesses.

(v) All pending Applications are disposed of.

[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.]

(This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes order dated 5^th August, 2025)

Page 4 of 4

Rekha Patil