ABA/1772/2026 of LAKAHN ALIAS MAHESH BIBHISHAN KHAMKAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 15 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

917 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1824 OF 2026

Sandesh Alias Viky Somnath Chavan

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondents/State 1011 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1796 OF 2026

Akshay Somnath Chavan

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Mr. S. G. Kawade i/by Shrikant G. Kawade And Legal Associates, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent/State 1009 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1772 OF 2026

Lakahn Alias Mahesh Bibhishan Khamkar

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra

Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for Applicant Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondents/State 1013 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1885 OF 2026

Amol Kalyan Waghmare And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra

Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for Applicant Mrs. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondents/State CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J

DATE

:OCTOBER 15, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:49194

917-ABA-1824-2026.odt

P. C. :

1.

Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with C.R. No.

283/2026 registered with Police Station Yermala, District Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 110, 115(2), 118(1), 121, 125, 132, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 194, 195, 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

First information report lodged by police constable Yermala Police Station indicates that in the night at about 09.00 pm at about 02.08.2026 an incident had occurred which continued for substantial time in which two groups armed with sticks and stones, assaulted each other. In the said incident, apart from the persons involved in the actual incident, police personnel also sustained injuries.

3.

Learned Counsels for the Applicants submit that there are omnibus allegations against Applicant of causing assault and in absence of any specific allegation against them, it is not possible to accept their active role in the crime in question. According to them, for want of any overt-act, their applications for pre-arrest bail needs to be allowed.

4.

Learned APPs opposed grant of any relief to the Applicants by referring to the first information report and statements of witnesses including police personnel. It is their contention that apart from the fact that there are injury certificate on record indicating causing of the injuries, there

is evidence in the form of CCTV footage showing active involvement of the Applicants in the crime in question. To support this submission, they drew attention of the Court to the transcript of CCTV footage indicating that Applicants were seen possessing weapons like stick and stones in said incident. It is also contended that some part of the CCTV footage transcript indicate overt-act on the part of one of the Applicant. It is also argued that Applicant – Akshay Chavan is having criminal history behind him.

5.

Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there are omnibus allegations against the accused persons for commission of crime.

Pertinently, there are 47 names and other 32 to 35 unnamed persons who said to have indulged in the said incident occurred in the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd August, 2026. As far as other Applicants than Sandesh in ABA

No. 1824/2026, no findings were recorded by the Sessions Court while rejecting application indicating any overt-act being committed by them.

There is, however, such findings recorded while rejecting application of Sandesh. Perusal of the two different transcripts of CCTV footage placed before this Court first of all indicates that there is material difference in the said transcripts. Moreover, even if both transcripts are accepted to be correct, there is nothing to indicate that these Applicants were seen assaulting anyone with sticks. Thus, sole reason for rejection of his application by Sessions Court does not sustain.

6.

Having regard to the aforestated facts, this is a fit case wherein the liberty of the Applicants deserve to be protected. Hence, the order: