Vitthal S/O Ramesh Ghule vs State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Officer

1 apeal58.2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.58/2026

(Vitthal S/o Ramesh Ghule and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Police Station Officer, Police Station, Jalgaon Jamod, Tah. Jalgaon Jamod, District Buldhana and another)

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - Mr. J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Ujjawal R. Phasate, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Alok Daga, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATED: 6.3.2026.

¶8

This is an Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SCST Act”) as the Application No.30/2026 preferred by the Appellants for pre-arrest bail is rejected by the learned special Judge, Khamgaon by the impugned order dated 03.02.2026. The Crime No.29/2026 is registered with Jalgaon Jamod Police Station on the Report lodged by the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 351(3), 352 read with 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) and for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCST Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the Respondent No.2 was abused on her caste by the Appellants on 15.01.2026 in front of the Panchayat Samiti Office. The Respondent No.2 had applied for the Gharkul and the same was sanctioned. However, the first instalment was not released and, therefore, she had given the representation.

¶9

2 apeal58.2026.odt

¶10

The Respondent No.2 was called by the Appellants in the office of Panchayat Samiti, where the incident took place.

¶11

Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants, the learned A.P.P for the State and the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2. With their assistance perused the papers.

¶12

The Appellant No.2 is the Sarpanch of the village where the Respondent No.2 is residing. The Appellant No.1 is the husband of Appellant No.2. The Respondent No.2 in the F.I.R. stated that, she was abused on her caste. The relevant para from the F.I.R. is reproduced below.

¶13

“ दि�ना�क 15/01/2026 रो�जी�चे�सक�ळी� 09/00 ok चे�स�मा�रो�सग्रा�मापं�चे�यचे� दि�पं�ईरो�जी�न्द्रव्यवहा�रो� gs ek>sघरो�आले�वमाले�म्हाणा�ले�क! तु�म्हा�ले�सरोपं�चेरो�श्मा� घ�ले�य��ना�ग्रा�मापं�चे�यतुय�थे�बो�ले�वले�पंरो�तु�मा�ग्रा�मापं�चे�यतुय�थे�गे�ले�ना�हा�त्य�मा�ळी� अं�.10/00 व�स�मा�रो�समाले�सरोपं�चेरो�श्मा�घ�ले�य��चे�फो�नाआले�वत्य��ना�माले� स��गे�तुले�क! तु�म्हा�ग्रा�मापं�चे�यतुय�थे�य�त्य�वरोमा�त्य��ना�स��गे�तुले�क! तु�म्हा�माले� पं�चे�यतुसमा�तु�जीळीगे�वजी�य�थे�भे�टा�त्य�ना�तुरोमा��पं�रो� 01/00 व�स�मा�रो�समा� पं�चे�यतुसमा�तु�जीळीगे�वजी�मा��चे�बो�जी,ले�अंसले�ले�झे�रो.क्स��क�नाजीवळीबोसले�ले� अंसतु�तु�थे�आमाचे�गे�व�तु�लेसरोपं�चेरो�श्मा�घ�ले�वतु�चे�पंतु�दिवठ्ठलेघ�ले�हा�आले�व माले�रो�श्मा�घ�ले�हा�म्हाणा�ले�क! तु�मा�झे�पंतु�चे�ना�वबो�ना�माक�करोतु�तु�झ्य�एक हा�पंक�डी�तु��व�क�अंस�म्हाणा�ले�तुस�चेदिवठ्ठलेघ�ले�हा�माले�म्हाणा�ले�क! gs माहा�रो लेयमा�जीले�आहा�तुअं��दि�व�गे�ळीकरूनाधमाक! दि�ले�तुस�चेसरोपं�चेरो�श्मा�ध�ले�दिहा जी�तु�जी�तु�माले�म्हाणा�ले�क! तु�म्हा�माहा�रोलेयमा�जीले�आहा�अंस�म्हाणा�नादिनाघ�नागे�ले� त्य�व�ळी�तु�थे�श्री�रो�मादिभेडी�हा�हाजीरोहा�तु�. वत्य��ना�घडीले�ले�घटाणा�पं�हा�ले�आहा�. तुरो� सरोपं�चेरो�श्मा�घ�ले�वदिवठ्ठलेरोमा � घ�ले�रो�. वडीगे�वपं�टाणाजी�तु-मारो�ठ�य�चे�वरो क�य8व�हा�व्हा�व�करो�तु�दिरोपं�टा8 ��तुआहा�.”

¶14

The learned Advocate for the Appellants submitted that, mere reference of the caste will not attract the offence under the provisions of the SCST Act. In support of his arguments, he relied on the judgments of this Court. As per the provisions of the SCST Act under which the aforesaid crime is registered the abuses should be within public view with the intention to humiliate a member of the

¶15

3 apeal58.2026.odt

¶16

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The case diary made available by the learned A.P.P. shows that, the statement of the eye-witness was recorded after the F.I.R. The perusal of the same shows that, it does not support the Respondent No.2’s accusations in relation to her caste. The papers on record indicate that, the Appellants opposed the regularization of the encroachment made by the Respondent No.2 on the land. The papers on record further goes to show that, the Appellant No.2 had lodged the Report against the Respondent No.2 on the very same day for the offence punishable under Sections 352 and 352(2) of the BNS. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the possibility of false implication with the allegations on the caste abuses cannot be ruled out. This being so, the bar under Section 18 of the SCST will not come in way. Considering the nature of offence, the investigation is possible without custodial interrogation of the Appellants. Hence, the following order.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

i) The Appeal is allowed.

¶19

ii) The impugned order dated 03.02.2026 is quashed and set aside.

¶20

iii) In the event of arrest of the Appellants in Crime No.29/2026 registered with Jalgaon Jamod Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 351(3), 352 read with 3(5) of the BNS and for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCST Act, they be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount.

¶21

4 apeal58.2026.odt

¶22

iv) The Appellants shall co-operate with the concerned Police Station and shall not tamper with the prosecution’s evidence in any manner.

¶23

v) The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶24

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)

¶25

Tambaskar.

¶26

Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/03/2026 18:24:11

Vitthal S/O Ramesh Ghule v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal S/O Ramesh Ghule v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Officer

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

Azaz Sheikh Rahim Sheikh vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Officer Police Station, Butibori Nagpur

Swapnil Gyaneshwar Bawane vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Pusad City Dist Yavatmal and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Police Station Nagbhid Dist Chandrapur vs Sachin Devidas Gopsettiwar and Other

Bajirao Bhimrao Sakalkar vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Jalna

Raj Khan Ansar Khan vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Mahagaon Yavatmal and Anr.

Purushottam S/O Keshaorao Deshmukh vs Executive Engineer, Representing V.I.D.C. (Acquiring Body), Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal and 2