Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Intent to Humiliate on Caste Basis. Alleged Offences Under Sections 296, 351(2) BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act Found Not Made Out as Incident Arose from Personal Dispute, Not Caste Animosity.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sohel Ali Aijaz Ali, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 18/05/2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in Anticipatory Bail Application No.168 of 2026, whereby his application for anticipatory bail was refused. The appellant sought enlargement on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.261 of 2026 registered at Shegaon City Police Station, District Buldhana, for offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The factual background reveals that on 24/04/2026, respondent No.2/informant lodged a report alleging that on 15/04/2026, one Sheikh Akbar Sheikh Imam called him to a furniture shop at Watika square. When the informant visited, the appellant, his younger brother, parents, and sister-in-law were present. It was alleged that Sheikh Akbar told the appellant to treat his daughter properly and discontinue his relationship with her. The appellant allegedly became angry and abused the informant with caste-related words, threatening him with dire consequences. The appellant contended that the allegations were false and motivated by a personal family dispute, and that there was no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act as the alleged incident did not occur in public view and lacked intent to humiliate on caste grounds. The State and respondent No.2 opposed the bail, arguing that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applied. The court, after hearing submissions and perusing the record, observed that the incident arose from a personal dispute regarding the appellant's daughter, and there was no material to show that the appellant intended to humiliate the informant on the basis of caste. The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted when the allegations do not prima facie disclose an offence under the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant on certain conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the bar under Section 18 of the Act applies when the allegations do not prima facie disclose an offence under the Act. Held that where the allegations are motivated by a personal dispute and lack intent to humiliate on caste grounds, the bar is not attracted and anticipatory bail can be granted (Paras 6-8).

B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Intent to Humiliate - The court examined whether the alleged abusive words were uttered with intent to humiliate the informant on the ground of caste. Held that the incident arose from a personal family dispute regarding treatment of the appellant's daughter, and there was no material to show that the appellant intended to humiliate the informant on caste basis (Paras 5-7).

C) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Applicability to SC/ST Act - The court noted that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies only if a prima facie case under the Act is made out. Since the allegations did not disclose such a case, the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC (Paras 6-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, when the allegations prima facie do not disclose any intent to humiliate the informant on the ground of caste.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 18/05/2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in Anticipatory Bail Application No.168 of 2026 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.261 of 2026 registered with Shegaon City Police Station, District Buldhana, on executing a PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to certain conditions.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail under Section 14(A) of SC/ST Act
  • Prima facie case requirement
  • Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act
  • Intent to humiliate on caste basis
  • Personal dispute vs caste-based offence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 167

Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2026

2026-07-15

Y.G. Khobragade J.

2026:BHC-NAG:9062

Mr. V.B. Bhise for appellant, Mr. S.C. Joshi APP for respondent No.1/State, Mr. Hariom V. Dhage for respondent No.2

Sohel Ali Aijaz Ali

The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Shegaon City, Tq. Shegaon, District Buldhana; Prakash Laxman Tayade

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST Act.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought setting aside of the order refusing anticipatory bail and enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.261 of 2026.

Filing Reason

The appellant was aggrieved by the order dated 18/05/2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, refusing his anticipatory bail application.

Previous Decisions

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, by order dated 18/05/2026 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.168 of 2026, refused to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail.

Issues

Whether the allegations prima facie disclose an offence under the SC/ST Act so as to attract the bar under Section 18 of the Act. Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 CrPC.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the allegations are false and motivated by a personal family dispute, and that there is no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act as the incident did not occur in public view and lacked intent to humiliate on caste grounds. The State and respondent No.2 opposed the bail, contending that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies and the appellant is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted when the allegations do not prima facie disclose an offence under the Act. Where the incident arises from a personal dispute and there is no material to show intent to humiliate on the ground of caste, the accused is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14(A) of the Act read with Section 438 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of the appellant, respondent No.1/ State, and respondent No.2 / informant, I have carefully gone through the record. It is alleged that at that time, Shekh Akbar had told the present appellant to treat his daughter properly and to discontinue his relationship with her. The incident in question appears to have arisen out of a personal dispute regarding the treatment of the appellant's daughter. There is no material on record to show that the appellant intended to humiliate the informant on the ground of caste. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Procedural History

The appellant filed Anticipatory Bail Application No.168 of 2026 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, which was refused on 18/05/2026. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present Criminal Appeal No.255 of 2026 under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST Act before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and allowed on 15/07/2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 14(A), Section 18, Section 3(1)(r), Section 3(1)(s), Section 3(2)(va)
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 296, Section 351(2)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 438
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petitions of Land-losers Seeking Compensation for Eucalyptus Trees Excluded by Circular. Circular Condition Excluding Eucalyptus Trees from Compensation Held Invalid as Trees Are Immovable Property Under Land Acqui...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Dying Declaration. Dying Declaration Recorded Without Doctor's Fitness Certificate and While Deceased on Ventilator Cannot Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC.