The Bombay High Court clarified that mere omission to mention an accused’s criminal antecedents or reliance on gravity of offence does not constitute valid grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail, particularly under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court followed Supreme Court precedents requiring “cogent and overwhelming circumstances” to cancel bail, and reaffirmed the distinction between grounds for granting bail and those for cancellation. This ruling is binding on subordinate courts and serves as an important authority in both Atrocities Act and general criminal bail jurisprudence.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | APEAL/423/2025 of ASHOK DAOJI GAIKWAD Vs GAJANAN NAMDEV MOHITE AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HCBM030230302025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Aurangabad Bench (Single Judge Bench) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents (Ankit Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Atrocities Act), Constitutional Law (Article 21) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that parameters for cancelling bail are stricter than for granting it, requiring cogent and overwhelming circumstances. Mere non-mention of criminal antecedents of an accused or the seriousness of allegations does not justify cancellation of bail, especially where the trial court considered the possibility of false implication, and the investigation is concluded. The liberty under Article 21 cannot be interfered with lightly, and bar under Section 18 of Atrocities Act is not applicable without prima facie material. The order of the Special Judge granting anticipatory bail was upheld as there were no valid or strong grounds for cancellation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Ankit Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 809; Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents on strict threshold for cancellation of bail; distinction between parameters for grant and cancellation; Article 21 right to liberty |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
An FIR was registered against the respondents for alleged caste-based abuse and assault under BNS and the Atrocities Act. The Special Judge granted anticipatory bail, noting no prima facie case for Atrocities Act offences and possibility of false implication. The informant/appellant challenged this order, alleging criminal antecedents weren’t considered and that gravity of the offence required cancellation of bail. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court (when considering cancellation of bail, especially under Atrocities Act) |
| Follows | Ankit Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 809; Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that cancellation of anticipatory bail requires “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances,” not merely a reconsideration of grounds considered at the time of grant.
- Clarifies that omission to mention an accused’s criminal antecedents, by itself, is insufficient to justify cancellation of bail.
- Distinguishes parameters for grant of bail from those for cancellation; cancellation interferes with the right to liberty under Article 21 and must be exercised sparingly.
- Establishes that when investigation is complete and there are no strong grounds, prolonging custody is unjust even in sensitive cases under the Atrocities Act.
- Holding specifically applies even where allegations pertain to offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and its Section 18 bar.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted Supreme Court judgments (Ankit Mishra and Daulat Ram) require “cogent and overwhelming circumstances” to cancel bail once granted.
- Distinguished between parameters for grant of bail and for its cancellation; the latter directly entails deprivation of liberty under Article 21, requiring a higher threshold.
- Observed that mere allegations regarding criminal antecedents, if not substantiated at the time of grant of bail, cannot become grounds for cancellation.
- Held that the investigation in the case was complete and no custodial interrogation was required, further diminishing case for cancellation.
- Found no material produced by the appellant to demonstrate any misuse of bail or overwhelming circumstance for interference.
- Affirmed the Special Judge’s assessment regarding lack of a prima facie case under the Atrocities Act, thus nullifying the Section 18 bar, and the presence of possibility of false implication.
- Dismissed appeal, upholding trial court’s anticipatory bail order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant / Informant):
- Challenged that the impugned bail order did not consider the criminal antecedents of Respondent No.2.
- Argued that the trial court failed to consider the gravity of the offence and the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
- Sought quashing of anticipatory bail on grounds of aforementioned defects.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Accused):
- Contended that the Special Judge correctly observed that no case was made out against them under the Atrocities Act.
- Asserted that the appellant failed to produce any strong or valid ground for cancellation of bail.
- Supported the correctness of the Special Judge’s order and sought dismissal of the appeal.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a complaint made by the appellant regarding poor quality road construction in his locality, leading to a quarrel with Respondent No.1 (the Sarpanch). The appellant alleged caste-based abuse and physical assault by Respondent No.1, and further alleged that when his niece intervened, her modesty was outraged by another accused. The FIR was registered at Islapur Police Station under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Special Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused. The appellant challenged this bail order, alleging procedural and substantive lapses.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, noting that the statutory bar for anticipatory bail does not apply if there is no prima facie case of the offence alleged under the Act.
- Reiterated the standard from Supreme Court authorities that parameters for grant and cancellation of bail are distinct, with higher threshold for the latter, to safeguard Article 21 rights.
- Relied upon principles regarding anticipatory bail when investigation is already complete and custodial interrogation is not required.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and affirms Supreme Court precedents on the law of cancellation of bail.