Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. Bombay High Court/
  4. 2024/
  5. September

Mahendra Madan Puri and Another vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Decided on 30 September 2024• Citation: APEAL/673/2024• Bombay High Court
Download PDF

Read Judgment


    2024:BHC-AUG:23239                                                            
                                                          29-APEAL-673-2024 II.odt
              (This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes order dated 01.10.2024)
                      IN THE  HIGH COURT  OF JUDICATURE  AT BOMBAY                
                                  BENCH AT  AURANGABAD                            
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO. 673 OF  2024                     
                            Mahendra Madan  Puri And Another                      
                                         VERSUS                                   
                         The  State Of Maharashtra  And  Others                   
                                           ***                                    
              •                                                                   
                Mr. D. M.  Shinde, Advocate  for the  Appellants                  
              •                                                                   
                Mr. M. K.  Goyenka, APP  for the Respondent/State                 
              •                                                                   
                Mr. R. Wagh,  Advocate  for Respondent  No. 3                     
                                           ***                                    
                                          CORAM  : R.M. JOSHI, J                  
                                          DATE   : SEPTEMBER 30, 2024             
              PER  COURT :                                                        
              1.        This  appeal  is  filed  under  Section  14(A)  of        
              the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention         
              of   Atrocities)    Act  (for   short   ‘Atrocities    Act’)        
              challenging   order  dated  22.07.2024   passed  by  learned        
              Additional   Sessions  Judge,  Hingoli,   Dist.  Hingoli  in        
              Criminal    Bail   Application   No.   283/2024    rejecting        
              application   for  anticipatory  bail   in connection   with        
              Crime  No. 267/2024  registered  with Hingoli  Rural  Police        
              Station,   Dist.  Hingoli   for  the   offences  punishable         
              under  Sections  452,  323, 143,  147,  148,  506(2) of  the        
              Indian  Penal  Code  and  Sections  3(1)(r),  3(1)(s),  3(2)        
              (va)  of the Atrocities  Act.                                       
                                        PAGE 1                                    
              Umesh                          OF 5                                 

                                                          29-APEAL-673-2024 II.odt
              2.        FIR  indicates  that  the  incident  has  occurred        
              in   two   phases.    At   first   instance,    there   were        
              altercations  in  one hotel  between the  Appellants  on one        
              side  and informant  and  others  on the  other side.  There        
              is  allegation   that  thereafter   allegations   that  they        
              went  to the  house of  informant  and abused  him over  his        
              caste.  There  is further  allegation  that  they  committed        
              criminal   trespass  in  the  house  of  the  informant  and        
              also  threatened  the father  of  the informant  and  abused        
              and  assaulted him.                                                 
              3.        Learned  Counsel  for  the  Appellants  has  drawn        
              attention   of  the  Court  to  the  order   passed  by  the        
              learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge rejecting  application         
              wherein  it  is specifically  observed  about  the  incident        
              in  question  having   not  happened  in  public  place  and        
              hence,  it  is not  in public  view.  It is  his submission         
              that  having  regard  to these  facts,  the offence  is  not        
              made  out against  them.                                            
              4.        Learned  APP  and learned  Counsel  for  Informant        
              opposed  the  Appeal by  contending  that  the observations         
              made  by  the  learned   Additional  Sessions   Judge  while        
                                        PAGE 2                                    
              Umesh                          OF 5                                 

                                                          29-APEAL-673-2024 II.odt
              rejecting   the  anticipatory   bail   application   of  the        
              Appellants   are  incorrect.  They  drew  attention  of  the        
              Court  to  the   police  papers  which  according   to  them        
              indicate  that the  incident  has occurred  in front  of the        
              house  of  the informant  and  other  persons  were  present        
              at  the relevant  time. Thus,  it is their  contention  that        
              offence  under  the  provisions  of  the Atrocities  Act  is        
              made  out and as  such, in  view of the  embargo created  by        
              Section  18 of  the Atrocities  Act,  the  Appeal cannot  be        
              allowed.                                                            
              5.        Apart  from the fact  that the  observations  made        
              made  by the  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge that  the        
              incident   in  question  occurred  in  public   view,  prima        
              facie  perusal  of  the statement  of  the  witness  creates        
              doubt   as  to  the   place  at  which   the  incident   has        
              occurred  or to  whom the alleged  utterances  were  made by        
              the  Appellants   were  made  over  the  caste.   No  doubt,        
              there   is  embargo   created  under   Section  18   of  the        
              Atrocities   Act  from  entertaining   an  application   for        
              anticipatory   bail, however,  it  is  settled  law that  if        
              any  prima  facie   offence  is  not  made   out  under  the        
              Atrocities  Act  the said embargo  would  not apply.  In the        
                                        PAGE 3                                    
              Umesh                          OF 5                                 

                                                          29-APEAL-673-2024 II.odt
              instant  case,  this Court  has  serious doubt  with  regard        
              to  the  occurrence  of  the incident   as narrated  in  the        
              FIR.  Learned   Counsel  for   the  Appellants   state  that        
              amongst  2  offences  in  one  offence  registered   against        
              Appellant  No.  1  is quashed   by this  Court  in  Criminal        
              Application  No. 1539/2023.                                         
              6.        Having  regard  to  the  aforestated   facts,  the        
              custodial   interrogation    of  the   Appellants   is   not        
              necessary.      This  is,   therefore,   a   fit  case   for        
              protecting  liberty  of the Appellants.  Hence,  the order:         
                                       O  R D E R                                 
              (i)   In  the event  of arrest  of  the Appellants   in             
                    connection    with       Crime    No.   267/2024              
                    registered  with Hingoli  Rural  Police Station,              
                    Dist.  Hingoli   for  the  offences   punishable              
                    under   Sections  452,   323,  143,   147,  148,              
                    506(2)  of the  Indian Penal  Code  and Sections              
                    3(1)(r),  3(1)(s),  3(2)(va)  of the  Atrocities              
                    Act,   they  shall   be  released   on  bail   on             
                    furnishing   PR  bond  of   Rs.  15,000  (Rupees              
                    Fifteen  Thousand  Only) each  with  one  surety              
                    in the  like amount.                                          
              (ii)  They   shall   attend   the   concerned   police              
                    station  as  and when  required  till  filing  of             
                    the charge-sheet.                                             
              (iii) They shall  not contact  the witnesses  directly              
                    or indirectly.                                                
                                        PAGE 4                                    
              Umesh                          OF 5                                 

                                                          29-APEAL-673-2024 II.odt
              (iv)  They shall  not interfere  with  the evidence  in             
                    any manner  whatsoever.                                       
              (v)   They  is  further   directed  to  cooperate   the             
                    investigating       agency      for      further              
                    investigation.                                                
                                                      (R.M. JOSHI,  J.)           
                                        PAGE 5                                    
              Umesh                          OF 5