Bombay High Court

SUNIL BHAUSING RATHOD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting release on personal bond with conditions.

Summary

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged assault on an informant and his father over a land dispute. The FIR alleged that Sunil Bhausing Rathod assaulted the informant with an axe, causing a grievous head injury, while the other applicants were said to have kicked and punched the victims. The defence argued that the dispute raised a possibility of false implication and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The prosecution contended that the specific allegation of a weapon‑based assault and the certified grievous injury warranted denial of bail. The court noted material inconsistencies in witness statements, the seizure of the alleged axe, and the lack of any claim for recovery against the other applicants, concluding that the case did not justify denial of bail. Accordingly, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application for Sunil Rathod with a personal bond and standard conditions, while confirming the interim relief previously granted to the other applicants.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused despite allegations of assault with an axe causing grievous injury.
Whether the existence of a land dispute and inconsistencies in witness statements create reasonable doubt sufficient to deny bail.
Whether the seizure of the alleged weapon and lack of recovery claims against co‑accused affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
assault
grievous injury
land dispute
weapon seizure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
personal bond

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42412




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1005 OF 2026
                        WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2574 OF 2026

           1. Sunil Bhausing Rathod
           2. Baban Rupchand Rathod
           3. Dinesh Baban Rathod
           4. Ganesh Baban Rathod                                 … APPLICANTS

                 VERSUS

           The State of Maharashtra                               … RESPONDENT
                                                  ...
           Mr. Rahul R. Karpe h/f Mr. Parth Surendra Salunke, Advocate for Applicants
           Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. V. S. Kakde, Advocate for the Informant

                                                    CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                    DATED      : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The Applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

           0210/2026 registered with Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna, for the

           offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 352, 351(2) read

           with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



           2.    Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is based on the First

           Information Report lodged by Anil Rathod. There is a dispute between

           Applicant No.1, Sunil Bhausing Rathod, and the Informant and his father

           regarding agricultural land. On 01.05.2026, the Informant along with his


           aba1005.26.odt                                                         1 of 5
father went to their agricultural land. At about 7.00 p.m., when they were

present in Gut No.115, the Applicants along with the co-accused came to the

spot. They allegedly started abusing the Informant and his father. It is alleged

that Dinesh was carrying an axe in his hand. Applicant No.1-Sunil took the

said axe from Dinesh and assaulted the Informant on his head, causing a

bleeding injury. It is further alleged that all the accused abused and assaulted

the Informant and his father by giving kicks and fist blows.



3.    Learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that there is admittedly

a dispute between the parties and, therefore, the possibility of false

implication cannot be ruled out. By referring to the documents placed on

record, it was submitted that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the

orders obtained by Applicant No.1 against the Informant and his father. It was

further submitted that, considering the allegations made against the

Applicants, their custodial interrogation is not necessary.



4.    Learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for the Informant

opposed the grant of any relief to the Applicants. They submitted that there

are specific allegations against Applicant No.1 that he assaulted the Informant

on his head with an axe, resulting in a grievous injury. It was further

submitted that, considering the statements of the witnesses recorded during



aba1005.26.odt                                                            2 of 5
the investigation, the occurrence of the incident deserves to be accepted.

According to them, having regard to the nature of the offence and the injuries

caused to the Informant, the Applicants are not entitled to the relief of pre-

arrest bail.



5.     The First Information Report itself indicates that there is a dispute

between the Informant and Applicant No.1 regarding the agricultural land.

The documents placed on record by the Applicants also support the existence

of such a dispute. As regards the occurrence dated 01.05.2026, although the

Informant has alleged that four persons participated in the assault on him and

his father, his statement is not fully supported by the statements of the

witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. There are material

inconsistencies in these statements regarding the participation of the

assailants in the alleged offence.



6.     Further, although the injury has been certified as grievous by the private

hospital, the description of the injury does not prima facie indicate that it is

grievous in nature. It is also not in dispute that the alleged axe used in the

commission of the offence has already been seized from the spot itself.

Therefore, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of Applicant No.1.

There are also no allegations against the other Applicants regarding the use of



aba1005.26.odt                                                             3 of 5
any weapon, and their alleged role is limited to assaulting the Informant and

his father by kicks and fist blows. Therefore, there is no question of any

recovery from them either.



7.    Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view

that it is a fit case to confirm the interim relief granted to Applicant Nos.2 to 4

and to allow the application of Applicant No.1. Hence, the following order.

                                     ORDER

             (i)     Application is allowed in terms of interim order dated
             19.06.2026.
             (ii)    In the event of arrest of Applicant No. 1. Sunil
             Bhausing Rathod, in connection with Crime No. 0210/2026,
             registered with Badnapur Police Station, Dist. Jalna, for the
             offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2),
             352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, he shall
             be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/-
             (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with one solvent
             surety in the like amount.
             (iii)   He shall attend the concerned police station as and
             when called by the Investigating Officer.
             (iv)    He shall not contact the witnesses directly or
             indirectly.
             (v)     He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
             whatsoever.




aba1005.26.odt                                                               4 of 5
            (vi)   He is further directed to cooperate the investigating
            agency for further investigation.

8.    Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the

concerned Police Station.



9.    Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.



                                                         ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




aba1005.26.odt                                                                5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…