APPLN/4094/2026 of RAVINDRA DHURAJI NIKALJE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS on 15 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

914 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1774 OF 2026

1. Raju Keshav Bankar

2. Ram Niranjan Mhaske

3. Shubham Murlidhar Mhaske

4. Murlidhar Eknath Mhaske

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1746 OF 2026

1. Laxman Murlidhar Mhaske

2. Sakharam Kashinath Kale

3. Keshav Pandu Bankar

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra

Mr. S. S. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicants Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4094 OF 2026 IN ABA/1774/2026

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4095 OF 2026 IN ABA/1746/2026

Ravindra Dhuraji Nikalje

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Mr. S. S. Patnunkar, Advocate i/by J. P. Legal Associates, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondents CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J

DATE

:OCTOBER 15, 2026

P. C. :

1.

By consent of both sides, ABA No. 1746/2026 with Criminal Application No. 4095/2026 are taken on board and heard along with

2026:BHC-AUG:49206

914-ABA-1774-2026.odt

present Applications.

2.

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

330/2026 registered with Pachod Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

First information report indicates that an incident had occurred on 03.08.2026 in which present Applicants have assaulted the informant with wooden sticks, wire etc. There is allegation against Applicants Muralidhar Mhaske, Shubham Mhaske and Ram Mhaske of causing assault on both legs of the Informant with wooden sticks.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that there are disputes between the parties and in respect of incident occurred on 03.08.2026, counter report came to be lodged. It is his submission that in the said incident in fact Applicant – Raju Bankar has sustained injuries and the incident occurred on earlier occasion i.e. on 29.07.2026 Rohan Mhaske sustained injuries. It is his submission that having regard to the said fact, possibility of false/over implication exits.

5.

Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant opposed grant of any protection to the Applicants by referring to the first information

report so also statement of eye witnesses, which according to them, gets further support from the injury certificate on record. It is argued that the Informant has sustained fracture injury, as such, this is not the case of grant of pre-arrest bail.

6.

Perusal of the first information report indicates that there are omnibus allegations against three persons of they causing assault on both legs of the Informant with wooden sticks. Though such allegations are made, the injury certificate indicates causing of a single injury, no doubt it is a fracture injury. Statements of eye witnesses do not indicate about any specific role which could be attributed to one of these three persons.

Considering the background of the case and more particularly, incident of 29.07.2026 as claimed by Applicant, so also the counter report lodged in respect of incident dated 03.08.2026, this Court finds that the fracture injury cannot be attributed to any individual Applicant. In the facts of the case, appropriate directions to the Applicants to appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of recovery of weapon, if any, would be sufficient to meet ends of justice. Hence, the order: