Anil Mahadev Chavan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Anil Mahadev Chavan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed and disposed of accordingly; impugned order of the Special Court set aside (expressly clarified that it was set aside not on merits and no opinion was expressed on the merits); Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8181 of 2025 relegated back to the Special Court for decision afresh; Special Court directed to record prima facie findings on whether the provisions of the Atrocities Act are attracted and then decide the application, within two weeks; liberty of the appellant protected for three weeks as charge-sheet has been filed against the co-accused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned Special Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the Special Court has no jurisdiction - without dealing with the merits or recording any findings on whether a prima facie case is made out for applicability of the Atrocities Act - is sustainable. +2 more

Court's answer

The learned Special Court erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground that it had no jurisdiction, without dealing with the merits of the case or recording any findings as to whether a prima facie case was made out for applicability of the Atrocities Act; on this footing the appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside.

Ratio / Principle

Since the Special Court has not dealt with the merits of the case, this Court refrains from recording any finding in this appeal for the first time, as doing so would deny the aggrieved party the opportunity of appeal under Section 14A; instead the application is remitted to the Special Court to record prima facie findings and decide the application afresh.

Key takeaways

This Court has already taken a different view than the one taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court: as held by this Court by order dated 9th February 2026 in Omraje A. Kalbhor vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Appeal (ST) No. 21477 of 2025), mere recording of prima facie findings with regard to non-applicability of the Atrocities Act would not lead to the cessation of jurisdiction by the Special Court. The Court did not decide this issue afresh in the present appeal.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R. M. Joshi, J.), Criminal Appeal No. 1290 of 2025, decided 16th February 2026 - Anil Mahadev Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. The learned Special Court, without dealing with the merits and without recording any findings as to whether a prima facie case was made out for applicability of the Atrocities Act, rejected Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8181 of 2025 holding that the Special Court had no jurisdiction, placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. Vidadalal Rajani w/o. Kumara Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC Online AP 3404. Held, allowing the appeal: (i) this Court has already taken a different view from the Andhra Pradesh High Court - per its order dated 9th February 2026 in Criminal Appeal (ST) No. 21477 of 2025, Omraje A. Kalbhor v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., mere recording of prima facie findings of non-applicability of the Atrocities Act would not lead to cessation of the Special Court's jurisdiction; (ii) since the Special Court had not dealt with the merits, the High Court declined to record any finding for the first time in appeal, as that would deny the aggrieved party the opportunity of appeal under Section 14A. Order: appeal allowed; impugned order set aside, clarified as set aside not on merits and with no opinion expressed on merits; application relegated to the Special Court for decision afresh, with directions to record prima facie findings on applicability of the Atrocities Act and then decide the application within two weeks; liberty of the appellant protected for three weeks, charge-sheet having been filed against the co-accused.

77-APEAL-1290-2025.DOC

Rekha Patil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1290 OF 2025

Anil Mahadev Chavan Versus

…Appellant

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

Mr. Manoj S. Mohite, Senior Advocate, with Ashwin R. Kapadnis, for the Appellant. Mr. A. S. Gawai , APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Sarvesh Deshpande , for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 16TH FEBRUARY 2026

PC:-

During the course of the hearing, it is found that the learned Special Court without dealing with the merits of the case and without recording any findings as to whether any prima facie case is made out for applicability of provisions of the Atrocities Act, rejected the application holding that the Special Court has no jurisdiction. In this regard, the reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Vidadalal Rajani w/o. Kumara Swamy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh¹

This Court has already taken a different view than the one taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It is held by this Court

REKHA PRAKASH PATIL

1 2025 SCC Online AP 3404

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2026.02.17 18:24:16 +0530

Page 1 of 3

77-APEAL-1290-2025.DOC

by order dated 9^th February, 2026, passed in Criminal Appeal (ST) No. 21477 of 2025, Omraje A. Kalbhor vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., that mere recording of prima facie findings with regard to non applicability of the Atrocities Act, would not lead to the cessation of jurisdiction by the Special Court.

Since the Special Court has not dealt with the merit of the case, this Court refrains itself from recording any finding in this appeal for the first time. By doing so, there would be denial of an opportunity of appeal under Section 14A to the aggrieved party.

As as result of above discussion, following order is passed;

ORDER

a) The Appeal stands allowed.

b) The impugned order is set aside.

c) The Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8181 of 2025 is relegated back to the Special Court for decision afresh.

d) The Special Court is directed to record findings with regard to the prima facie case being made out or not attracting the provisions of the Atrocities Act and then to decide the application.

e) It is clarified that the order impugned has been set aside not on merit nor this Court has

Page 2 of 3

77-APEAL-1290-2025.DOC

expressed any opinion / view with regard to the merits of the case.

f) Since the charge-sheet has been filed against the co-accused, the liberty of the appellant is protected for a period of three weeks from today.

g) The Special Court is directed to decide the Application within a period of two weeks from today.

The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Page 3 of 3

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order of the learned Special Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the Special Court has no jurisdiction - without dealing with the merits or recording any findings on whether a prima facie case is made out for applicability of the Atrocities Act - is sustainable.¶10
The court held
The learned Special Court erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground that it had no jurisdiction, without dealing with the merits of the case or recording any findings as to whether a prima facie case was made out for applicability of the Atrocities Act; on this footing the appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside.ratio¶10
2.
Whether mere recording of prima facie findings with regard to non-applicability of the Atrocities Act would lead to cessation of jurisdiction by the Special Court.¶17
The court held
This Court has already taken a different view than the one taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court: as held by this Court by order dated 9th February 2026 in Omraje A. Kalbhor vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Appeal (ST) No. 21477 of 2025), mere recording of prima facie findings with regard to non-applicability of the Atrocities Act would not lead to the cessation of jurisdiction by the Special Court. The Court did not decide this issue afresh in the present appeal.obiter¶17
3.
Whether this Court, hearing the appeal for the first time, should itself record findings on the prima facie applicability of the Atrocities Act where the Special Court failed to do so, having regard to the aggrieved party's opportunity of appeal under Section 14A.medium confidence¶18
The court held
Since the Special Court has not dealt with the merits of the case, this Court refrains from recording any finding in this appeal for the first time, as doing so would deny the aggrieved party the opportunity of appeal under Section 14A; instead the application is remitted to the Special Court to record prima facie findings and decide the application afresh.ratio¶18