The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Akola dated 08.05.2025, rejecting the application for grant of anticipatory bail. The appellant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The allegation levelled against the present appellant was that the present appellant assaulted the informant and took her in auto rickshaw to the residence of Salma Nayak, wherein also she was assaulted thereafter, some cream was applied which usually used for removal of the hair on her head and chili powder was spread over her eyes as well as put in her private part and she was forced to consume country liquor. The learned Special Court rejected the anticipatory bail application by observing that in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the application is not maintainable. It was further contended that the allegation of obtaining the video was not substantiated by any material and was baseless and false and therefore, the physical custody of the present appellant was not required and in view of that, he prayed to be protected by granting anticipatory bail.
However, the respondent No.2, strongly opposed the said appeal, on the ground that the informant was not only assaulted by the present appellant, but the chili powder was put in her private part and also poured in her eyes. The medical certificates were on record. There were statements of witnesses which substantiate the said contention, and therefore, it was claimed that custodial interrogation was required.
As far as the application of the provisions of Atrocities Act is concerned, the court observed that, admittedly, initially there was no allegation levelled that the present appellant had abused her caste. It was contended that after six months of the incident, when a statement was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), first time this allegation was levelled against the present appellant. As far as the other allegation that pouring of the chili powder is concerned, the Court held that the medical certificate nowhere substantiates the same. The injuries sustained were in the nature of blunt trauma. The only contention of the State was that the mobile phone of the appellant was to be recovered, which can be taken care of by imposing certain conditions on the present appellant.
Accordingly, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke quashed and set aside the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. The Court directed that the appellant shall attend the concerned Police Station on 12.08.2025 and produce his mobile phone, and thereafter, the appellant shall not enter into the vicinity of city Akola, except attending the proceeding of the Court after filing of the charge-sheet. The Court further directed that the appellant shall not induce, threat or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case. The appeal was disposed of.
Appearances:
Mr. Parth Malviya, Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for the respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Yash P. Bage, appointed Counsel for respondent No.2.
