In a significant order emphasizing the protection of personal liberty, the Bombay High Court has granted interim bail to three appellants accused in a case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court observed that the allegations may not extend beyond certain offences under the BNS, and that the incident did not prima facie occur in public view, warranting interim protection pending further investigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants - Sadashiv Alias Anna Sunil Shinde, Vikas s/o Tanaji Harale, and Suhas s/o Dattatray @ Pintu Shinde - are accused in Crime No. 0129/2026 registered at Police Station Dharshiv Rural, District Dharashiv. The case involves allegations under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Sections 118(1), 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), and 352, as well as offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Two other appellants, Siddhant s/o Nanasaheb @ Suresh Bichkule and Ajay s/o Satish Harale, were already arrested, rendering their appeals infructuous.
Key Facts
- The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged in February 2026, alleging offences under the BNS and the SC/ST Act.
- The appellants contend that the dispute between the parties may lead to false implication and that the allegations do not extend beyond Section 118(1) of the BNS (equivalent to the erstwhile Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code).
- There is no allegation of caste-based abuse against the appellants, and the incident is not claimed to have occurred in public view.
- The appellants sought protection of their liberty pending investigation, arguing that the case does not warrant custodial interrogation at this stage.
Procedural History
- Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2026 was filed by Sadashiv, Vikas, Suhas, Siddhant, and Ajay challenging their potential arrest.
- Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2026 was filed by Avinash Achyut Shinde, which was tagged with the present appeal.
- 29.06.2026: The Court heard the submissions of the appellants and the State.
- The Court noted that appellants No. 3 and 4 (Siddhant and Ajay) were already arrested, rendering their appeal infructuous.
- Notice was issued to the respondent-State, returnable on 18.07.2026, with the State waiving service of notice.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought interim protection from arrest, arguing that:
- The allegations may not extend beyond Section 118(1) of the BNS.
- There is no public view element in the alleged incident.
- The dispute between the parties raises the possibility of false implication.
The Legal Issue
The primary question before the Court was whether the appellants were entitled to interim protection from arrest pending investigation, given the nature of the allegations and the absence of prima facie evidence suggesting offences beyond Section 118(1) of the BNS or those committed in public view.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the disputes between the parties raise the possibility of false implication.
- It was contended that there is no allegation of assault against one of the appellants, and the case cannot travel beyond Section 118(1) of the BNS.
- The counsel argued that there is no allegation of caste-based abuse and that the incident did not occur in public view.
- The appellants sought protection of their liberty, emphasizing that custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage.
For the Respondent-State
- The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the grant of interim protection, relying on the allegations in the FIR.
- The State contended that the offences under the SC/ST Act and BNS were serious and warranted custodial investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a prima facie assessment of the allegations and the disputes between the parties. Key observations included:
- The record indicated disputes between the parties, which had led to the lodging of previous reports. This context raised concerns about false implication.
- The Court noted that the allegations may not extend beyond Section 118(1) of the BNS, which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt.
- There was no prima facie evidence to suggest that the incident occurred in public view, which is a critical element for certain offences under the SC/ST Act.
- The Court emphasized the protection of personal liberty, particularly in cases where the allegations may not warrant immediate custodial interrogation.
"Prima facie, the record indicates that there are disputes between the parties, which have resulted in the lodging of previous reports. In this backdrop, there is substance in the contention of the appellants that the allegations against the appellants may not travel beyond the offence under Section 118(1) of BNS. Prima facie, this is not a case wherein the incident has occurred in public view. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, the liberty of the appellants deserves to be protected till the informant is heard in the matter."
The Court balanced the rights of the accused with the interests of the investigation, granting interim protection while imposing conditions to ensure cooperation with the authorities.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court granted interim bail to the appellants - Sadashiv, Vikas, and Suhas - pending further investigation. The key directions were:
- In the event of arrest in Crime No. 0129/2026, the appellants shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of Rs. 15,000 each, with one solvent surety in the like amount.
- The appellants are directed to attend the concerned Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer.
- They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
- They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner.
- They shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency for further investigation.
- The APP for the State was directed to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection of Liberty Pending Investigation
This judgment reinforces the principle that personal liberty must be safeguarded even during the investigative stage, particularly where:
- The allegations are disputed and raise concerns of false implication.
- The offences alleged do not prima facie extend beyond less serious provisions (e.g., Section 118(1) of the BNS).
- There is no public view element in the alleged incident, which is critical for certain offences.
Practitioners should note that interim protection from arrest can be sought where the FIR lacks specific allegations warranting immediate custody.
False Implication and Disputed Allegations
- Courts are increasingly cautious in cases where disputes between parties may lead to false or exaggerated allegations.
- Where the record indicates prior disputes, this can be a strong ground for seeking interim protection.
- The judgment highlights the importance of prima facie assessment by courts before ordering arrest, particularly in cases involving non-public offences.
Conditions for Interim Bail
- The Court imposed strict conditions to ensure the appellants' cooperation with the investigation, including:
- Attendance at the Police Station when called.
- Non-interference with witnesses or evidence.
- Cooperation with the Investigating Agency.
- Practitioners must ensure that conditions of bail are strictly adhered to, as violations can lead to revocation of protection.
Implications for SC/ST Act Cases
- The judgment underscores that offences under the SC/ST Act require specific allegations, such as caste-based abuse or public view incidents.
- Where such specific allegations are absent, courts may be inclined to grant interim protection pending further investigation.
- This ruling may encourage defence counsels to scrutinize FIRs for lack of specific elements under the SC/ST Act to seek bail.
