Bombay High Court

NILU SOPANRAO GHULE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail, finding that the delay in filing the FIR and the existence of counter‑reports raised a likelihood of over‑implication and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Summary

The applicants, Nilu Sopanrao Ghule and Asha Sopan Ghule, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0067/2026, alleging offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR, lodged five days after the alleged incident, disclosed a dispute between the parties and was supported by an injury certificate. Counsel for the applicants argued that the delay and the existence of counter‑reports indicated a possibility of over‑implication and that the alleged weapon had already been seized, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. The State opposed bail, relying on the FIR and medical evidence. The Court, noting the disputed facts, the FIR delay, and the seizure of the weapon, held that anticipatory bail was appropriate, granting interim bail to Asha and conditional bail to Nilu upon arrest, subject to a bond and standard conditions. The order directed the applicants to cooperate with the investigation and refrain from contacting witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the FIR is delayed and the facts are disputed, indicating possible over‑implication.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary when the alleged weapon has been seized.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 117(2), 117(3), 118(1), 125(A), 351(1), 351(3) r/w 3(5), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
over‑implication
FIR delay
custodial interrogation
bail conditions
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure

Judgment

                                -1-
                                                      aba1113.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     923 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1113 OF 2026

1.    Nilu Sopanrao Ghule

2.    Asha Sopan Ghule                          ….Applicants

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                        …..Respondent

Mr. A. D. Raut, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the State.

                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                              DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.    Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

0067/2026, registered with Mahur Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for

the offences punishable under Sections 117(2),117(3), 118(1), 125(A),

352, 351(1), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



2.    First Information Report indicates that there are disputes

between informant’s side and Applicants’ side.    Allegations is with

regard to the incident occurred on 03.04.2026 that Applicant No. 1 is

said to have caused grievous injury to the informant with stick in his

hand. Allegation against Applicant No. 2 is that she used stone to

cause assault.
                                   -2-
                                                       aba1113.26.odt



3.    Learned Counsel for Applicants submits that there are disputes

between the parties and there is delay of 5 days in lodging First

Information Report.    He therefore contends that possibility of over

implication is not ruled out.      According to him, admittedly, the

weapon allegedly used in the assault is already seized and as such

custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not necessary.



4.    Learned APP opposed grant of protection to the Applicants by

referring to the allegations against them in the report, which,

according to him, are supported by the injury certificate on record.



5.    Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there are

disputes between the parties and in respect of the incident occurred

on 03.04.2026, there are counter reports. Present report came to be

lodged after 5 days of the incident and hence, this Court finds

substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicants

that this could be a case of over implication. In any case, since the

alleged weapon used in the crime has been seized, custodial

interrogation of the Applicants is not necessary. Hence, application

is allowed in following terms :-
                               -3-
                                                       aba1113.26.odt

                              ORDER

 (i)     Application qua Applicant No. 2 Asha Sopanrao
 Ghule is allowed in terms of the interim order.


 (ii)    In the event of arrest of Applicant No. 1 Nilu
 Sopanrao      Ghule,   in     connection    with    Crime    No.
 0067/2026, registered with Mahur Police Station, Dist.
 Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections
 117(2),117(3), 118(1), 125(A), 352, 351(1), 351(3) r/w
 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, he             be released on
 bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen
 Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount.


 (iii)   He shall attend the concerned police station as
 and when called.


 (iv)    He shall not contact the witnesses directly or
 indirectly.


 (v)     He shall not interfere with the evidence in any
 manner whatsoever.


 (vi)    He    is   further    directed     to   cooperate    the
 investigating agency for further investigation.


 (vii)   Learned APP to communicate this order to the
 concerned Investigating Officer.



                                                 ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…