BA/1965/2026 of MANOJ ANKUSH JADHAV Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 4 November 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

935 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1965 OF 2026

Manoj Ankush Jadhav

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra

...

Mr. Kale Datta Sundarrao, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.

Dated : 4th November, 2026

PER COURT :-

1.

Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP

for the respondent-State.

2.

The present application seeks regular bail in connection with the applicant’s arrest dated 19.06.2026 in Crime No.267 of 2026, registered at Khultabad Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Urban) for the offences punishable under sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 125, 125(a), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

At the outset, the learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that there are in all six accused persons named in the charge-sheet, out of which, two are released on anticipatory bail while three on regular bail. The applicant is in jail since 19.06.2026.

4.

The prosecution story is that on the day of incident the other

2026:BHC-AUG:54796

935ba1965-26

two accused persons by name Aniket Nalawade and Ashwin Nalawade were sitting in the Hotel of the injured and were spitting Gutka on the floor of the restaurant. The informant requested them not to spit in the restaurant as there are other customers also sitting. The accused Aniket and Ashwin got annoyed and, therefore, they telephoned the present applicant and other co-accused to reach the spot. It is alleged that on reaching the spot, the present applicant, who was holding iron road, assaulted the informant and other injured witness thereby causing injuries to the head of the informant. The offence came to be registered against the six persons.

5.

The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since last more than four months. All the accused persons are released, either on anticipatory bail or on regular bail. The iron rod has already been recovered, investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. He submits that the injury certificate also describes the nature of injury as simple. Thus, there is least possibility that the applicant can be convicted under Section 109 of the BNS. He prays that the application be allowed.

6.

Per contra, the learned APP opposed the application by saying that the statements and the investigation has revealed that the applicant has played active and aggressive role. The injures are directly attributed to the present applicant who assaulted informant and other

injured victim with the aid of iron road. The intention is clear that the applicant wanted the informant to be dead. She, therefore, argues that the present application does not deserve to be allowed.

7.

I have perused the copy of the charge sheet and have also heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

8.

No doubt, the allegations are serious and specific against the present applicant. The present applicant is alleged to have used the deadly weapon like iron road and has assaulted on the vital part of the body i.e. head. There are four injuries are noted on the head of the informant. However, the fact remains that the Doctor has described the said injuries as simple in nature. Taking into consideration that the applicant has been in custody since 19.06.2026, the fact that the other accused persons have already been released on bail, the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, and the weapon, i.e. an iron rod, has also been recovered, I do not find any reason to continue the applicant's further custody. Hence, the following order: