Bombay High Court holds they cannot, reaffirming that prima facie specific role/ingredients are required to invoke the statutory bail bar; binding on subordinate courts and persuasive elsewhere
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | APPEAL/233/2025 of BADAL DILIP AHIRE @ DHANGAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HCBM030145572025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad |
| Bench | Single Judge (KISHORE C. SANT, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Clarification of law; binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on Section 18 bail-bar |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; bail; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether non-specific (“omnibus”) allegations against multiple persons satisfy the Section 18 SC/ST Act bail-bar |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the statutory bar under Section 18 requires prima facie proof of specific ingredients of an offence under the Atrocities Act. There were 15 named and 40–50 unnamed persons, but no specific role was attributed to the appellant. In absence of any distinct allegation or ingredient of atrocity against him, the bail-bar cannot be invoked. General, omnibus allegations do not suffice to deprive an accused of bail under the SC/ST Act. A bail application may thus be allowed if no specific role or offence is made out on the face of the FIR. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | An ST-community security guard lodged FIR No. 0307/2023 (Nizampur PS, Dhule) alleging a mob of 40–50 persons (15 named) abused him in filthy caste terms and assaulted him late at night after a Garbha event. The appellant’s name figured among many, but no distinct act was ascribed to him. |
| Citations | 2025 :BHC-AUG :22407; Crap233.25 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Bombay High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that Section 18 SC/ST Act’s bail-bar applies only where prima facie ingredients of the atrocity are established in the FIR.
- General or omnibus allegations against a group do not automatically attract the statutory bail-bar.
- Where no specific conduct of the accused is identified, bail can be granted despite invocation of the Atrocities Act.
- Advocates may rely on this judgment to challenge blanket refusal of bail in cases with non-specific allegations under the SC/ST Act.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the FIR which named 15 individuals and referred to another 40–50 unnamed persons.
- It found no distinct act or role attributed to the appellant in committing any offence under the SC/ST Act.
- Noted that Section 18 bars bail only if prima facie ingredients of an atrocity offence are present.
- Held that omnibus allegations without identification of wrongful act cannot satisfy the statutory threshold.
- Concluded that, on prima facie review, bail must be granted when no specific offence or role is made out.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No specific allegation against the appellant; allegations are omnibus/general.
- Ingredients of the Atrocities Act are not made out on the face of the FIR.
State (Respondent-State)
- Allegations are serious and involve a large mob that abused the informant and women from the community.
- Bail should be refused.
Respondent No. 3
- Case clearly falls under the Atrocities Act; Section 18 provides an absolute bar to bail.
- Appeal should be dismissed.
Factual Background
On 23 October 2023, the informant (a security guard belonging to an ST community) was on duty and allegedly confronted a miscreant at a Garbha event. He later filed FIR No. 0307/2023 at Nizampur Police Station, Dhule, accusing a mob of 40–50 persons (15 named, the rest unnamed) of abusing him in caste-related terms and assaulting him. The offences invoked included various IPC sections, provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Special Judge refused bail, prompting this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 18, SC/ST Act: bars bail where prima facie ingredients of an atrocity are made out.
- Court emphasized need for specific allegations satisfying elements of offences under the Act.
- Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 341, 427 IPC; Sections 135, 37 Maharashtra Police Act: treated as general offences but bail bar arises only from SC/ST Act.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines or innovations were issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025 :BHC-AUG :22407
- Paras 8–9 (key ratio)