Arjun Ramkisan Paste vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Arjun Ramkisan Paste vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in terms of prayer clause 'C': in the event of arrest of the Appellant (Arjun Ramkishan Paste), he is to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 73/2026 (Majalgaon Rural Police Station, District Beed) for the offences under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing PB and SB of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) attendance at the concerned Police Station on 19.06.2026 between 11:00 a.m. and 01:00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing of charge-sheet; (ii) no tampering with prosecution evidence till conclusion of trial; (iii) not leaving India without prior permission of the Court till conclusion of trial; (iv) furnishing contact details and residential address to the I.O./Police Station and the concerned Court and keeping the information updated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged incident took place at a place within public view as contemplated under the provisions of the Atrocities Act, and consequently whether the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act arises. +1 more

Court's answer

The alleged offence took place within the four corners of the wall (inside premises) where members of the public were not present; therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it cannot be said that the incident took place at a place within public view as contemplated under the provisions of the Atrocities Act.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the statement of witness Dinesh Paste (who was present and rescued the quarrel), he did not state that the accused abused the Informant with a caste slur to humiliate her; he only stated that he had rescued the quarrel between them.

Key takeaways

Nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to show that the accused abused or assaulted the Informant with the intention to insult or intimidate with the intent to humiliate her, or that the incident occurred within public view; therefore, in the court's view, the question of a bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not arise.ratio¶6
Except for Section 74 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the other offences with which the Appellant is charged are bailable ones.ratio¶5
The victim sustained three injuries (contusions and an abrasion) and the nature of the injuries was simple, indicating no serious assault.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) — Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2026, decided 11 June 2026 by ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. — Bail — Atrocities Act — Section 18 bar — 'Public view' requirement. Appeal by Arjun Ramkisan Paste against the order dated 06.04.2026 of the learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Majalgaon rejecting his bail application in Crime No. 73/2026 (Majalgaon Rural Police Station, District Beed), registered for offences punishable under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. From the FIR (report lodged 28.02.2026 re incident of 27.02.2026 at about 10 p.m.), the court found the alleged offence took place 'within the four corners of the wall', with no members of the public present, so it could not be said to have occurred within public view as contemplated under the Atrocities Act. Witness Dinesh Paste's statement did not allege abuse with a caste slur to humiliate the Informant; the victim's three injuries (contusions and an abrasion) were simple in nature. Nothing on record showed abuse or assault intended to insult, intimidate or humiliate, nor a public-view occurrence; hence the question of a bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act did not arise. Except Section 74 BNS 2023, the offences were bailable; nothing remained to be recovered; custodial interrogation was not required. Appeal allowed in terms of prayer clause 'C': on arrest, the Appellant to be released on furnishing PB and SB of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions (police-station attendance on 19.06.2026 and thereafter as called till charge-sheet; no tampering with evidence; no leaving India without prior permission; furnishing/updating contact details and address). Counsel Mr. Akash E. Madne, appointed by order dated 08.06.2026, to have his fees quantified and paid per the Rules of the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.