Raghunath Sakharam Avhad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

¶1

1

¶2

941criapeal740.25

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

941 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2025

¶5

Raghunath Sakharam Avhad, Age; 58 years, Occ; Labour, R/o; Labour Colony, Karkhana Road, Basmath, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. 2. Madhav Rathunath Avhad, Age; 28 years, Occ; Labour, R/o; Labour Colony, Karkhana Road, Basmath, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Basmath Police Station, (City) Tq. Basmath, District Hingoli. 2. Jamunabai Sopanrao Yengade, Age; 55 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o; Labour Colony, Tq. Basmath, District Hongoli. ...RESPONDENTS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Jadhav Arvind Gangadhar APP for Respondents/State : Mr. V.M.Chate Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms Smita R. Kasture (appointed)

¶6

CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 21.01.2026

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

Heard Mr. Jadhav, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.Chate, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent No. 1-State and Ms. Kasture, learned counsel for appearing for respondent

2

941criapeal740.25

No. 2.

Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the record.

¶13

The contents of the First Information Report shows that on 07.03.2025, at about 7.00 a.m., appellant No. 1/accused came in front of the informant’s house and abused the informant in filthy language, as the hens of the informant visiting at the courtyard of appellant No. 1 accused and were dirtying their court yard. Therefore, the informant asked respondent No. 2/informant to restrain the hens. Thereon, respondent No. 2 asked the accused not to abuse in filthy language. In the meantime, appellant No. 2 visited there and he also abused in filthy language. He entered in the house, broken the electric meter and water tap and also abused in the language by saying that “egkjs gks rqeph ,okyh dk rqEgh tkLr ektys dk rqeph rj vkrk lks; ykorks”.

¶14

On the basis of said FIR, Crime bearing No. 141 of 2025 was registered with Basmath (City) Police Station, Tq. Basmath, District Hingoli, for the offence punishable under Section 351(3), 351(2), 352, 324 (4), 296, 125 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3 (2) (v-a), 3 (1) (s), 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (for short “Atrocities Act”).

¶15

The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 vehemently canvassed that as per recitals in the FIR, the instant abuses

¶16

3 941criapeal740.25

¶17

in the caste occurred on the public road and within the public view, therefore, Section 18 of the Atrocities Act creates bar to enlarge the appellants/accused on anticipatory bail.

¶18

Needless to say that, the FIR does not disclose that the caste-based abuses at the hands of appellants/accused persons to the respondent No. 2 was occurred within public view or on a public road. However, on carefully going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that after abusing in filthy language, the appellants entered in the premises of respondent No. 2/Informant and they broken the electric meter, water tap and then allegedly abused them by saying “egkjs gks rqeph ,okyh dk rqEgh tkLr ektys dk rqeph rj vkrk lks;

¶19

ykorks”. Therefore, it appears that the said incident of caste-based abuse occurred within the premises of respondent No. 2. Therefore, to my mind the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act creates bar under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. during the trial.

¶20

On 04.10.2025, this Court had already passed an order and enlarged the appellants/accused on anticipatory bail by imposing certain terms and conditions. Therefore, it would be just and proper to extend the interim order during the trial Court. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.

¶21

The interim order dated 04.10.2025 is hereby extended during the pendency of the trial in Crime No. 141 of 2025, registered

¶22

4

¶23

941criapeal740.25

¶24

with Basmat Police Station, District Hingoli.

¶25

Since Ms. Kasture, learned Counsel is appointed to defend the cause of the respondent No. 2, victim, therefore, her fees be ascertained and be paid to her as per rule, by the Legal Services Authority, Sub Committee, High Court, Aurangabad.

¶26

mahajansb/

Raghunath Sakharam Avhad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Sakharam Avhad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Saba Salmankhan Pathan vs Salmankhan Daulatkhan Pathan

Anil Fulchand Chate vs Sonali Anil Chate

Pratiksha Pratik Jadhav vs Pratik Vishnu Jadhav

Govind Balaji Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dipali Ganesh Vibhute vs Ganesh Shantiling Vighute

Tanaji Narayan Bhadake vs the State of Maharashtra and Another