Court Finds No Prima Facie Offence Against Two College Students, Upholds Bail Denial for Remaining Accused
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench, presided over by Justice Y.G. Khobragade, has granted anticipatory bail to two of the four accused in a case involving alleged caste-based atrocities, while rejecting the bail applications of the remaining two. The case, titled Yogitabai and Others v. State of Maharashtra, revolves around accusations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alongside various offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The court was tasked with examining whether a prima facie case was established against the accused under the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act, which generally bars anticipatory bail. The case stems from an incident on November 12, 2025, where the complainant, a Scheduled Caste member, alleged that she and her family were verbally abused and physically assaulted by the accused, who belong to a different caste.
According to the judgment, the appellants Yogitabai and Vinod Bhagwat Patil, accused Nos. 1 and 2, allegedly used caste-based slurs and issued threats to the complainant in a public setting. The court found that these actions constituted a prima facie offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, justifying the denial of anticipatory bail for these two accused.
However, the judgment took a different stance regarding the other two accused, Bhushan Vinod Patil and Yogesh Vinod Patil, who are college students. The court found no substantive evidence of caste-based abuse or insult on their part. As a result, the court quashed the denial of anticipatory bail for these two appellants, allowing them to remain on bail under conditions previously set by an interim order.
The court's decision underscores the nuanced application of the SC/ST Act's provisions, particularly the bar on anticipatory bail, which is not absolute. The ruling emphasizes the need for courts to critically assess the presence of a prima facie case before denying bail, ensuring that the rights of individuals are balanced against the objectives of the legislation.
The case was previously handled by the Special Court in Amalner, which had denied anticipatory bail to all four accused. The High Court's decision now partially overturns this earlier ruling, providing a mixed outcome for the appellants.
Bottom Line:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 18 - Prima facie offence must be made out under the provisions of the Act for the bar on anticipatory bail to apply.
Statutory provision(s): Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 18; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 309(4), 115(2), 296, 351(2), 352, 3(5); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Old Section 482 CrPC).
Yogitabai v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(Aurangabad Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2852722
