Dismissed¶39

Shivaji Bankati Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Feb 2026APEAL/112/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused; Section 18 SC/ST Act bar; Section 14 appeal dismissed; casteist abuse in public place and public view; sickle assault; injury certificate; FIR Crime No.3 of 2026, Dharur Police Station, District Beed; B.N.S. 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2); SC/ST Act 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 2(2)(va), 3(2), 3(V); Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, AIR 2025 SC 4083 applied; Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge Kaij; Y. G. Khobragade, J.; Bombay High Court Aurangabad; decided April 06, 2026.

What did the court decide?

As per the F.I.R., the appellant abused the respondent No.3 / informant with casteist slur at a public place in public view and assaulted him. ¶38

Shivaji Bankati Yadav vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/accused is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.3 of 2026 despite the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, i.e., whether a prima facie case for enlarging him on anticipatory bail is made out.

¶14

Court's answer

As per the F.I.R., the appellant abused the respondent No.3 / informant with casteist slur at a public place in public view and assaulted him.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Considering the contents of the F.I.R. and the injury certificate, the incident having occurred within a public place and public view, the court, as per the law laid down in Kiran (supra), found that no prima facie case was made out to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail, the Section 18 bar standing in the way of anticipatory bail.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2026 (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench; Y. G. Khobragade, J.; 06.04.2026): Appeal under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 05.02.2026 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Kaij, District Beed, refusing anticipatory bail below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.35 of 2026 in Crime No.3 of 2026 (Dharur Police Station, registered 08.01.2026) under B.N.S. Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and SC/ST Act Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 2(2)(va), 3(2), 3(V). FIR alleges that on 07.01.2026 the appellant questioned the informant about non-withdrawal of an atrocity complaint against his father, abused him with casteist slur, and, with associate Subhash Prakash Yadav, assaulted him with a sickle. Applying Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Ors, AIR 2025 SC 4083 (Section 18 bar on anticipatory bail absolute unless no prima facie Section 3 offence on the face of the FIR), and considering the FIR contents and the injury certificate showing the incident occurred in a public place and public view, the court found no prima facie case to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail. Appeal dismissed. Fees of the appointed (legal aid) counsel Mr. R. D. Thorat for respondent No.3 to be quantified as per rules and paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶1

40-Cri-Apeal-112-2026.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:15061

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

40 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2026

¶5

SHIVAJI BANKATI YADAV

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. D. B. Bhange, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. R. D. Thorat, Advocate (Appointed through Legal Aid) for Respondent No.3

¶9

CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

¶10

DATE : April 06, 2026

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶13

appellant, the learned APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 / informant.

¶14

By the present appeal under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant / accused takes exception to the order dated 05.02.2026, passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.35 of 2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special

¶15

1 of 6

¶16

(( 2 )) 40-Cri-Apeal-112-2026

¶17

Judge, Kaij, District Beed, thereby declined to release the appellant/accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.3 of 2026, registered with Dharur Police Station, District Beed on 08.01.2026, for the offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of B.N.S., under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 2(2)(va), 3(2) and 3(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the record. It is a matter of record that on 08.01.2026, the respondent No.3 / informant lodged an oral report with Dharur Police Station, alleging that on 07.01.2026 at about 4.00 p.m., while he was on the way to his field to collect the firewood and reached near the gate of “Shaheed Jawan Natha Chhatragun Yadav”, at that time, the present appellant / accused Shivaji Bankati Yadav approached him and questioned as to why his father lodged the complaint of atrocity against him and why he has not been withdrawn the same. It is further alleged that the appellant/accused abused the informant in filthy language. At the same time, the other accused Datta Bhimrao Yadav, Bankati Bhimrao

¶19

2 of 6

¶20

(( 3 )) 40-Cri-Apeal-112-2026

¶21

Yadav, Rama Datta Yadav, Subhash Prakash Yadav, Abhishek Shivaji Yadav, Tushar Shivaji Yadav and Prakash Arjun Yadav also came to the spot and abused him on his caste and said that as to why the atrocities complaint is not getting to withdraw. At that time, when the complainant told that they fractured the hand of his father and therefore, the complaint will not be withdrawn. Thereafter, the present appellant / accused Shivaji Bankati Yadav along with his associate Subhash Prakash Yadav, allegedly assaulted him with the sickle on his head and again abused on his caste. On the basis of said oral report Crime No.3 of 2026 came to be registered against the present appellant and his associates.

¶22

Section 189 of B.N.S. provides for an unlawful assembly consisting of five or more persons. Section 189(4) provides that whoever, being is a member of unlawful assembly, armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both has been provided. Section 191(2) provides whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or

¶23

3 of 6

¶24

(( 4 )) 40-Cri-Apeal-112-2026

¶25

with both. Section 118(2) provides punishment not less than one year but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 352 provides that whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

¶26

Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, creates a bar under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (Section 482 of B.N.S.S.) if the offence is made out under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶27

In the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Ors, AIR 2025 SC 4083, wherein, in paragraph No.6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-

¶28

“ 6. In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the

¶29

4 of 6

¶30

(( 5 ))

¶31

40-Cri-Apeal-112-2026

¶32

applicability of Section 438, Cr.PC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off.

¶33

6.1. The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code.

¶34

6.2. Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.”

¶35

In the case in hand, on perusal of the F.I.R., it prima facie appears that, when the informant was on the way to his field to get firewood and reached near the gate of “Shaheed Jawan Natha Chhatragun Yadav”, the present appellant / accused visited him and issued threat as to why he is not withdrawing the complaint of

¶36

5 of 6

¶37

(( 6 )) 40-Cri-Apeal-112-2026

¶38

atrocity lodged against his father. The appellant / accused also abused on casteist slur to the respondent No.3 / informant at the public place in public view and assaulted to the informant. Therefore, considering the contents of F.I.R. as well as the injury certificate placed on record, the incident which is occurred within the public place and public view, therefore as per the law laid down in the case of Kiran cited (supra), I do not find that the appellant / accused has made out prima facie case to enlarge him on anticipatory bail and no bar is created under Section 18 to enlarge the appellant / accused on bail.

¶39

In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed.

¶40

The fees of the appointed counsel Mr. R. D. Thorat, shall

¶41

be quantified as per rules and be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶42

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]

¶43

SMS

¶44

6 of 6

Shivaji Bankati Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Bankati Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Vishal Ashok Kote vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Akshay Rangnath Sakhre vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Savita Akash Gaikwad @ Savita Anil Mangase vs Akash Sadashiv Gaikwad

Baburao Shivaji Gade vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prashant Jagdish Gosavi vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Godavari Prashant Polshetwar vs Santosh Vitthal Kate