Sharad Sampatrao Girde vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Heard Shri A. V. Khare, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri G. S. Umale, the learned APP appearing for the respondent No.1 – Prosecution; and Shri A. V Lokhande, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

Admit. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it is heard finally at the stage of admission.

By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), the appellant takes exception to the order dated 01/12/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora, whereby declined to enlarge the appellant/accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.397/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(q) and 3(1)(z) of the SC/ST Act.

On the face of the record, it prima facie appears that on 12/11/2025, the respondent No.2 / informant lodged an oral report with Chimur Police Station alleging that on 01/05/2025 at about 9.00 a.m., he had visited his plot situated beside the plot of the appellant. At that time, he found drainage water flowing near his compound wall. Therefore, he asked the appellant / accused to divert the flow of said drainage water or to take care of it. However, the appellant / accused allegedly enquired about his caste and when he disclosed the fact that he belonged to the Cobbler (Chambhar) Caste, which falls within the ambit of Scheduled Castes, at that time, the appellant / accused allegedly asked him not to construct the house on the said plot and he should sell the said plot. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.397/2025 was registered against the present appellant / accused. Soon after the registration of the crime, the appellant / accused approached before the learned Trial Court by filing Criminal Bail Application No.186/2025.

On 01/12/2025, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order and rejected the application on the ground that the accused had let sewerage water into the compound wall of the informant and when the respondent No.2 / informant disclosed that he was a member of the Scheduled Caste, at that time, the appellant / accused asked the informant not to construct the house and to sell the same. Further, by allowing the sewerage water to flow, an offence under Section 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act was made out, hence, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was attracted.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that the alleged plot of respondent No.2 was open and soon after the respondent No.2 disclosed his attention to raise construction, the appellant / accused immediately stopped the flow of drainage water. Further, the alleged incident took place on 01/05/2025, however, there was a delay of more than six months in lodging the report. So also, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(q) and 3(1)(z) of the SC / ST Act have not been made out. Therefore, the appellant / accused is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the respondent No.2 has filed a reply affidavit and strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 canvassed that the appellant has not stopped the flow of drainage water from his house and the said drainage water is flowing in front of the premises of the respondent No.2. Further, when the respondent No.2 disclosed that he belongs to a member of a Scheduled Caste, the appellant / accused directed the respondent No.2 not to raise construction and he should sell the plot. Therefore, there is an intention on the part of the appellant to abuse the informant on the ground of his caste. Therefore, bar is created under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act to enlarge the appellant / accused on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is attracted against the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant / accused.

The prosecution has filed a reply and stated that after the registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Further, upon on completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant / accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(q) and 3(1)(z).

On 12/12/2025, this Court passed an order and enlarged the appellant / accused on ad-interim anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. There are no allegations that the appellant / accused has misused his liberty or has interfered with the investigation. Nonetheless, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet against the appellant / accused after completion of the investigation.

During the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent No.2 / informant had raised grievances regarding installation of the kitchen chimney by the appellant and due to the smoke emanating from the kitchen chimney, the respondent No.2 / informant facing inconvenience. In order to ascertain the said problem, both the parties were directed to produce photographs on record. The appellant has filed additional affidavit and stated that, he has already shifted exhaust fan of the kitchen chimney. The respondent No.2 has produced the colour photographs of his house as well as the house of the appellant / accused. On perusal of said photographs, it appears that the exhaust fan of kitchen chimney has been shifted and as of today, there is no disturbance caused by the smoke of the kitchen chimney.

Now, another issue is about getting to plaster the compound wall standing between the house of the appellant and the respondent No.2 / informant. After perusal of the photograph dated 19/10/2026, it appears that, one side portion of compound wall is facing to the house of the appellant unplastered. Shri Khare, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a statement that, the appellant would permit the respondent No.2 to get the plastered the said compound wall at the cost of the respondent No.2 and he would not restrain the masonry workers to get it plastered.

Needless to say that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent No.2 is almost settled. On perusal of FIR, it does not appear that the appellant / accused abused the respondent No.2 on the ground of his caste in public view, however, it appears that the drainage water was flowing in front of respondent No.2 but it does not appear that there was some intention to harass the respondent No.2.

Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant / accused has made out a substantial case to enlarge him on anticipatory bail and Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not create bar to enlarge the appellant / accused on anticipatory bail.

On 12/12/2025, this Court had already enlarged the appellant / accused on ad-interim anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions, including condition that the appellant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Monday and Saturday between 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. Since the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no necessity for the appellant to attend the concerned Police Station by the appellant on every Monday and Saturday.

In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to allow the present appeal and proceed to pass the following order :-

i] The appeal is allowed.

ii] The impugned order dated 01/12/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora in Criminal Bail Application No.186/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.

iii] The interim order passed by this Court on 12/12/2025 shall remain in force, during the pendency of the trial on the same terms and conditions, except for Condition No.(iv).

iv] The appeal stands disposed of.

v] Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.