Bombay High Court
SHAKYA PRESH SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail must be granted as there are no specific allegations against the applicants and custodial interrogation is not required.
Summary
The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 303 of 2026, arising from a dispute over hoisting a blue flag on a pole already bearing a saffron flag, which led to stone‑pelting by a mob of over 200 persons and injuries to an informant and police officers. The applicants contended that no specific allegation in the FIR linked them personally to the stone‑pelting or the injuries, and that some were not even charged by the prosecution. The State argued that the applicants had used social media to incite the gathering and that injuries were proven by medical certificates. The court examined the FIR and found no specific charges against the applicants, concluding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to all applicants, imposing conditions such as furnishing a bond, not contacting witnesses, and cooperating with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the FIR does not specifically allege the applicant's participation in the alleged offences.
- Whether the presence of a social‑media call to assemble negates the entitlement to bail.
- Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the absence of specific allegations against the applicants.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 118(2), 121(1), 132, 189, 190, 191(1), 191(2), 192, 195, 196
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- stone pelting
- flag dispute
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- police injury
- bail conditions
- mob violence
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
926 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1630 OF 2026
1. ABHISHEK VISHNU SURWASE
2. SURAJ ANKUSH LONDHE
3. DHAIRYASHEEL SANJAY LONDHE
4. MAHADEV BHIMRAO SHENDGE
5. RUTIK SAMBHAJI VEER
6. YASH SANDIP CHAVAN
7. NAGESH BALIRAM GHOGARE
8. MAHESH BALASAHEB DISALE
9. DATTATRAYA SUBHASH PANHALE
10. AMOL SHRIRANG KUMBHAR
11. ABHIJIT SANJAY JIKRE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Kishor R. Doke, Advocate for Applicants
Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State
---
1011 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1065 OF 2026
SHAKYA PRESH SHINDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
…
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1069 OF 2026
RITESH JEJERATH GAIKWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr. Kishor R. Doke, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the Respondent/State
926 ABA 1630.2026.odt 1 of 6
1018 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1169 OF 2026
ANIKET POPAT TIPE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Kishor R. Doke, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent/State
1019 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1218 OF 2026
AMIT ARUN MASKAR AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1219 OF 2026
SAMADHAN ABHIMAN KADAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr. Kishor R. Doke, Advocate for Applicants
Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State
1020 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1253 OF 2026
BAPPASAHEB ALIAS ADESH MAHADEV IJAGAJ AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr. Kishor R. Doke, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent/State
1026 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1496 OF 2026
AJAY ALIAS DADA PAPPAN THORAT AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
926 ABA 1630.2026.odt 2 of 6
Mr. Kishor R. Doke, Advocate for Applicant
Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Since all these applications arise out of the same crime, by consent of
both sides, they are heard and decided together.
2. The applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 303 of
2026, registered with Bhoom Police Station, District Dharashiv, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(2), 132, 121(1), 189, 190,
191(1), 191(2), 192, 195 and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The gist of the First Information Report indicates that the incident
occurred over the issue of fixing a blue flag on the same electric pole on which
a saffron flag had already been hoisted. The incident involved pelting of
stones from both sides. As a result thereof, injuries were caused to the
informant and other police personnel.
4. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that there was a mob of
more than 200 persons at the spot, out of which 30 to 40 persons were taken
into custody immediately after the incident and were subsequently released
on regular bail. It is his submission that there are no specific allegations
926 ABA 1630.2026.odt 3 of 6
against the present applicants that they had pelted stones or caused injuries to
the police personnel.
5. Learned APP opposed the grant of any protection to the applicants on
the ground that, considering the manner in which an appeal was made
through social media calling people to assemble at the spot, this is not a case
in which protection ought to be granted to the applicants. It is submitted that
injuries were caused to the informant and police personnel, which is
supported by the injury certificates collected during the course of
investigation.
6. As far as Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1218/2026 is concerned,
learned APP submits that the applicants in the said application are specifically
named in the First Information Report and, as such, it cannot be said that
there are no specific allegations against them. In response thereto, learned
Advocate for these applicants submits that, though these applicants are
named therein, there is no specific allegation against them that they pelted
stones at the police personnel or caused injuries to them. This Court finds
substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the applicants in this
regard.
7. Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there are no specific
926 ABA 1630.2026.odt 4 of 6
allegations against the applicants of pelting stones and causing injuries to any
particular police personnel. In Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1630/2026,
applicant No. 6, Yash Sandip Chavan, has not been charged by the
prosecution.
8. Having regard to these facts, this Court finds that the present case does
not require custodial interrogation of the applicants. Hence, the following
order:
ORDER
(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1065/2026 with Anticipatory
Bail Application No. 1069 of 2026, Anticipatory Bail Application No.
1169 of 2026, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1218 of 2026 with
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1219 of 2026, Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 1253 of 2026 and Anticipatory Bail Application No.
1496 of 2026 are allowed in terms of interim orders dated
29.06.2026, 07.07.2026, 13.07.2026, 17.07.2026 and 10.08.2026
respectively.
(ii) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1630 of 2026 is allowed in
following terms:
(a) In the event of arrest of applicants in connection with
Crime No. 0303 of 2026 registered with Bhoom Police Station,
Dist. Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections
109, 118(2), 132, 121(1), 189, 190, 191(1), 191(2), 192,
195, 196 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, they 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.
(b) They shall attend the concerned police station as and
when called by the Investigating Officer.
926 ABA 1630.2026.odt 5 of 6
(c) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(d) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(e) They are further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.
9. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
926 ABA 1630.2026.odt 6 of 6
Checking your session…