Pravin Bhagwan Thoke Patil v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

(P.A.) 82_APEAL_1298_2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1298 OF 2025 Pravin Bhagwan Thoke Patil ...Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

None for the Appellant.

Ms. Shilpa Gajare-Dhumal, APP for the Respondent - State. None for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM

R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATED:

06TH MARCH 2026 PC:- 1.

None for the Appellant.

2.

This Appeal was heard on 18th February, 2026. When this Court has shown its disinclination to grant any relief to the Appellant, on that day, the counsel for the Appellant, sought time to take instructions for withdrawal of the Appeal. Accordingly, the time was granted. On 20th February, 2026, learned counsel for the Appellant, on instructions, made a statement that the talks were going on between the informant and the Appellant and other villagers

(P.A.) 82_APEAL_1298_2025.doc in respect of the settlement. Time was granted with clarification that if no settlement takes place on or before the said date of hearing, the Appeal stands dismissed as expressed by this Court on earlier occasion.

3.

Today, none appear for the Appellant nor for the Respondent No.2.

4.

This appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 takes exception to the impugned order dated 9th December, 2025 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.1123 of 2025 in connection with CR No.505 of 2025 registered with Wadner Police Station.

5.

It was the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not prima facie made out and, therefore, the Special Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. This

(P.A.) 82_APEAL_1298_2025.doc contention was opposed by learned APP and the counsel for the Respondent No.2 pointing out the First Information Report as well as the statement of independent witness, in whose presence the incident in question has occurred. 6.

Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report as well as the statement of independent witness show that the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is apparently made out. Once the offence is made out under the Act, the embargo of Section 18 would apply. In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to cause interference in the impugned order. 7.

Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.

(R. M. JOSHI, J)