1
SLP(Crl.) No(s).11436/2023
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).11436/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-02-2023 in CRLA No. 843/2022 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Aurangabad)
BHAGWAN VISHWANATH TIKHE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.169975/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.169978/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.169979/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 169978/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 169979/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 21-02-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv.
Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR
Mr. Manoj Dond, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Sethi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shreeyash Lalit, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State of Maharashtra is represented by Mr. Shreeyansh U Lalit, learned counsel.
2. Notice in this case was issued on 06.09.2023, with the following order:-
Delay condoned.
2. Heard Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. The counsel would refer to the complaint dated 19.02.2022 and read the relevant portion to point out that even if the offending words are read in its entirety, no offence is made out under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accordingly, it is argued that the High Court should have favourably considered the pre-arrest bail plea of 1 the petitioner.
4. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
5. In the meantime, the petitioner is protected from arrest.
3. As can be seen from the FIR and the statement attributed to the petitioner, whether that is a casteist slur or not, is to be determined in course of the Trial. The chargesheet in the case is filed and therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be unnecessary.

4. We have also considered the bar for anticipatory bail provided under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. But in order to apply the bar, one has to firstly be satisfied that the accused has used a casteist slur. However that, in our opinion, is not absolutely clear and should, in the present facts, be decided by the the Court.

5. In the above circumstances, if the Police wish to arrest the petitioner (Bhagwan Vishwanath Tikhe) in connection with the case arising out of FIR No.52/2022, upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail.

6. The observation made in this order should be understood as only for the purpose of considering bail and those should have no implication in course of Trial either for the Prosecution or for the Defense.
7. With the above order, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR