Allowed¶22

Sadanand Balu Tare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026APEAL/1073/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail / pre-arrest bail; Section 18 embargo, Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; prima facie offence under the Atrocities Act; FIR statements; land dispute between parties; caste abuse by co-accused; Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.854 of 2025 rejected 7 October 2025; Criminal Appeal No.1073 of 2025; Sadanand Balu Tare and ors. v. State of Maharashtra and anr.; Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station; Bombay High Court; R. M. Joshi, J.; decided 9 February 2026; appeal allowed in terms of interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in terms of interim relief; the specific terms of the interim relief are not described in the judgment. ¶22

Sadanand Balu Tare and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

23 APEAL 1073-25-CR.DOC

¶2

Priya Soparkar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1073 OF 2025 Sadanand Balu Tare and ors. …Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents

¶5

Ms. Priyanka Kolekar h/f Mr. Dinesh Kolekar, Senior Advocate through V.C., for the Appellant.

¶6

Mr. Aamir Shaikh , for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP , for the State.

¶8

Mr. S.V. Kadam, ASI for the Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station is present.

¶9

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 9^th FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶10

PC:-

¶11

This appeal takes exception to the order dated 7^th October, 2025 passed in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.854 of 2025, whereby the application for the pre-arrest bail came to be rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the FIR which according to him indicates that there is no allegations against the present Appellant which could attract the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”). It is his contention

¶13

PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR

¶14

Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2026.02.09 18:20:12 +0530

¶15

Page 1 of 2 9^th February, 2026.

¶16

23 APEAL 1073-25-CR.DOC

¶17

that even accepting the statements under the FIR as it is to be true, no offence is made out against them.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 as well as learned APP opposed the appeal.

¶19

It is the contention of the Respondent No.2 that admittedly there are disputes over the land between the parties. In that view, the Appellant alongwith the co-accused is a potential threat to the Informant.

¶20

There cannot be any dispute with regard to the position of law that unless prima facie offence is made out under the Atrocities Act, embargo created by Section 18 of the Atrocities Act has no application.

¶21

Even if statements of the Informant as recorded in the FIR are accepted to be correct, it only indicates that there are disputes between the parties over the land and the Co-accused abused the Informant over his caste. There are instances of the Appellant of committing any offence under the Act. As such, section 18 of the Act, embargo has no application to the present case.

¶22

In view of the above, the Appeal stands allowed in terms of interim relief.

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

9^th February, 2026.

Sadanand Balu Tare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand Balu Tare and Ors. v. the 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

Tata Aig Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dipika Jagannath Koli and Anr.

Tata Aig Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dipika Jagannath Koli and Anr.

Hirabhai Jethabai Sosa vs Meghana Madhukar Patki and Anr.

Hanumant Rambhau Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jayashri Ramesh Deore and Ors. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager

Usman Ismail Sidiqui vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.