Sanket Govindrav Ugale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2026:BHC-AUG:4834 919-Cri-Apeal-841-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 919 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 841 OF 2025 SANKET GOVINDRAV UGALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ....

Mr. S. P. Nimbalkar, h/f Mr. J. D. Pathade and Ganesh Kakarwal, Advocates for the Appellant Mr. K. S. Patil, APP for Respondent No.1 - State Mr. Jitendra S. Jain, Advocate (Appointed through Legal Aid) for Respondent No.2 ....

CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

DATE : February 03, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned APP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2.

Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the record. 3.

By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

(( 2 )) 2023, the appellant / accused takes exception to the order dated 29.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.182 of 2025, whereby anticipatory bail for the present appellant / accused Sanket Govindrao Ugale, has been rejected. However, another accused Karbhari Kacharu Ugale, is released on anticipatory bail.

4.

It is a matter of record that on 04.06.2025, the respondent No.2 / informant lodged an oral report with Veergaon Police Station, Taluka Vaijapur, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, alleging that on 30.05.2025, at about 8.30 p.m., when he was standing near a grocery shop of village temple, at that time, the present applicant other accused visited him and abused on his caste. Respondent No.2 / informant appears to be a member of scheduled caste and he was manhandled and assaulted at the hands of accused persons with iron rod.

5.

As per the contents of the F.I.R. all the accused including the present appellant, abused the informant on his caste in chorus. The F.I.R. does not reflect that the particular accused abused the

(( 3 )) respondent No.2 on his caste. As per the contents of the F.I.R. the informant sustained grievous injuries. During the course of argument, the learned APP produced the case diary, which shows that the present respondent No.2 / victim, sustained four grievous injuries. 6.

The respondent No.2 / victim already discharged from the hospital. The Investigating Officer already conducted the investigation and filed charge-sheet on 31.07.2025.. Considering the nature of offence and the abusement on caste, which does not appears that which of the accused abused the respondent No.2 on his caste. So also, the role played by the present accused is similar to the accused who already enlarged on bail. The prosecution has not brought any material to show that any recovery is to be effected as against the appellant / accused. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet is already filed. Therefore, in my view, the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, does not create a bar to enlarging the appellant during the pendency of the trial.

7.

On 07.11.2025, this Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail and enlarged the appellant / accused on bail.

(( 4 )) Therefore, it would be just and proper to extend the said order till conclusion of the trial.

8.

In view of above, the appeal stands disposed off. The adinterim anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 07.11.2025, shall continue till conclusion of the trial.

9.

The fees of the appointed counsel Mr. Jitendra S. Jain, shall be quantified as per rules and be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] SMS