BA/1261/2026 of ROSHAN S/O VINODRAO PINJARKAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR POLICE INSPECTOR, RAJAPETH PS, TQ. AND DIST. AMRAVATI on 14 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.1261 OF 2026

ROSHAN S/O VINODRAO PINJARKAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO, PS RAJAPETH, TQ. AND

DIST. AMRAVATI

Office Notes, Office Memoranda

of Coram, Appearances, Court's

orders or directions and

Registrar's orders

Court's or Judge's orders

Mr. P.V. Navlani, Advocate for Applicant.

Ms. S.S. Dhote, APP for Non-Applicant-State.

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

DATED : 14th OCTOBER 2026

PER COURT :-

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP

for the State.

2.

By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.155 of 2025, registered with Police Station Rajapeth, Dist. Amravati City, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the father of the deceased Tirth has lodged the report, alleging that on 15.04.2025, at about 02.00 a.m., his deceased son was called by the applicant and other accused persons. Thereafter, there a was quarrel 2026:BHC-NAG:13936

between them on account of becoming President of Shiv Jayanti Program organized by Shiv Premi Mitra Mandal, Ravi Nagar, Amravati. At that time, the applicant and other accused persons assaulted the deceased with kicks and fist blows. Upon hearing the noise, the informant’s nephew viz. Chetan went to stop the quarrel and saw that the deceased was lying on the ground and has sustained bleeding injuries. It is further alleged that accused Suraj was having blood stained knife in his hand. When Chetan shouted for help, all the accused persons fled the spot. Hence, the FIR.

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the father of the applicant is 73 years of age and is suffering from Locomotor Disability. There is no one to look after him as both his sons are in jail

i.e. the applicant and another co-accused. In support of his submission, he has filed an affidavit. Even otherwise, he submits that so far as the allegations in the FIR are concerned, the allegations against the applicant are that he was holding knife, however, he has not used the said knife for inflicting the blow. He submits that the presence of the applicant was shown along with the knife. The witnesses have also stated that another accused has inflicted blow with the help of knife and therefore, according to him, considering the said facts and circumstances, the applicant deserves to be granted bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the applicant was present on the spot.

She submits that the applicant and his brother and one another accused has committed serious offence of murder. She submits that the incident occurred on account of the fact that accused No.2 wanted to become the president of Shiv Premi Mitra Mandal, Ravi Nagar, Amravati and she contends that there is ample of material placed on record against the applicant and therefore, she submits that, under such circumstances, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail.

6.

Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, it is necessary to keep in mind the first ground which was raised that there is no one to look after the father of the applicant, who is suffering from Locomotor Disability, since his both sons are behind bars and an affidavit has been filed in support of the said contention.

After perusal of the affidavit and other documents, it appears that the father of the applicant is 73 years of age and no one is present to look after him. The applicant has one sister, however, she is residing at Ambajogai after marriage. Under such circumstances, considering this fact and the role attributed to the present applicant that he was on the spot and he was holding the knife, I am of the considered opinion that there is no overt act on the part of the applicant. Therefore, a case is

made out for grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order.