Allowed¶33

Mahesh Vishwas Kadam v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2025APEAL/839/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (R.M. Joshi, J.), 21 November 2025, Criminal Appeal No.839 of 2025 — anticipatory bail under Section 14A, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; 'public view' requirement for Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s); Section 18 embargo; reliance on Hitesh Varma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710; FIR CR No.288 of 2025, Waraje Malwadi Police Station, Pune; bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with surety.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; consequently Application No.4684 of 2025 allowed — in case of arrest, the Appellant to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to a direction that he shall not 'intact' (sic) in the evidence in any manner whatsoever. ¶33

Mahesh Vishwas Kadam vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are attracted where the alleged incident occurred inside the informant's house and not in public view, and consequently whether the bar under Section 18 applies to the Appellant's anticipatory bail application.

¶23

Court's answer

On perusal of the FIR, the incident occurred inside the house of the Informant; in view of Hitesh Varma v. State of Uttarakhand, unless the offence is committed in public view, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act would not apply.

¶25-26

Ratio / Principle

Apart from the allegations of the abuses, no other role is attributed to the present Appellant.

¶31-32

Key takeaways

Since no prima facie offence under the Atrocities Act is made out, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the pre-arrest bail application, as the embargo of Section 18 would not be applicable.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against rejection of anticipatory bail (FIR/CR No.288 of 2025, Waraje Malwadi Police Station, Taluka and District-Pune) — Perusal of the FIR showed the incident occurred inside the house of the Informant and not in public view — Following Hitesh Varma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act would not apply where the offence is not committed in public view — Apart from the alleged abuses, no other role attributed to the Appellant — No prima facie offence under the Atrocities Act made out; embargo of Section 18 inapplicable; Trial Court ought to have allowed pre-arrest bail — Appeal allowed; Application No.4684 of 2025 allowed; in case of arrest, Appellant to be enlarged on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, with a direction not to 'intact' (sic) in the evidence.

¶1

13-APEAL-839-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.839 OF 2025

¶4

Mahesh Vishwas Kadam …. Appellant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

State Of Maharashtra And Anr …. Respondents

¶7

NILAM Digitally signed byNILAM SANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2025.11.2119:11:16 +0530

¶8

Mr.Dr.Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr.Aadil Parsurampuria, Mr.Pratik Dixit, Mr.Aalam Parsurampuria i/b Mr.Rushikesh Chavan, for the Appellant.

¶9

Mr.Ashok s. Gawai, APP, for Respondent No.1-State.

¶10

Ms.Shraddha Sawant, Appointed Advocate, for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : 21^st NOVEMBER 2025

¶13

P.C:-

¶14

. Heard.

¶15

This appeal under Section 14A of the he Scheduled

¶16

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

¶17

1989 (‘SCST Act’ for short), is against order passed by the Trial

¶18

Court rejecting the Anticipatory Bail Application in CR

¶19

No.288 of 2025 registered with Waraje Malwadi Police Station,

¶20

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

¶21

13-APEAL-839-2025.doc

¶22

Taluka and District-Pune.

¶23

The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, even if the First Information Report for the sake of the argument is accepted to be correct, still the offence under provisions of Atrocities Act is not made out, since the offence is committed inside the house and not in public view. According to him, there is no allegations of the present Appellant abusing over the caste

¶24

The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and APP opposed the Appeal.

¶25

Perusal of the First Information Report indicates that, the incident in question is occurred inside the house of the

¶26

Informant. In view of the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Varma V/s. State of Uttarakhand¹ , unless the offence is committed in public view, the provisions of the Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act would not apply.

¶27

Apart from the allegations of the abuses i.e. not on

¶28

1 (2020) 10 SCC 710

¶29

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

¶30

13-APEAL-839-2025.doc

¶31

the case of the Informant, there is no other role attributed to

¶32

the present Appellant.

¶33

Since, the prima facie offence is not made out under the Atrocities Act, Trial Court ought to have allow Application for pre arrest bail as embargo of Section 18 would not be applicable to present case, Appeal stands allowed. Consequently, the Application No.4684 of 2025 is allowed.

¶34

In case of the arrest of the Appellant, he be enlarged on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

¶35

He shall not intact in the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶36

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3

Mahesh Vishwas Kadam v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Vishwas Kadam 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

Mukhtar Ahmed Nisar Ahmed Ansari vs State of Maharashtra

Kynlo Magwada vs State of Maharashtra

Sankalp Vilas Bhatkar vs the State of Maharashtra

Shyam Rajkumar Tiwari @ Tanna vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Gama Bhardwaj vs State of Maharashtra

Talib Raju Ali @ Irani vs State of Maharashtra