Bombay High Court

BHARAT BHIKAN BIRHADE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail is warranted for Bharat Bhikan Birhade as the FIR does not allege his participation or weapon possession, while Dipak Ramesh Birhade's application was dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, considered an anticipatory bail application filed by two brothers, Bharat Bhikan Birhade and Dipak Ramesh Birhade (Koli), against charges under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court noted that the FIR alleged a stabbing by Dipak but made no allegation of weapon possession or assault by Bharat. Consequently, the court accepted the withdrawal of Dipak's application and dismissed it as withdrawn. Finding no prima facie case against Bharat, the court confirmed the interim pre‑arrest bail previously granted to him. The decision rests on the lack of specific allegations linking Bharat to the alleged crime.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Bharat Bhikan Birhade in view of the allegations in the FIR.
Whether the FIR contains sufficient material to justify denial of bail to the applicant.
Whether the application filed by Dipak Ramesh Birhade should be dismissed as withdrawn.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
pre‑arrest bail
FIR
false implication
injury certificate
criminal procedure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

                                 -1-
                                                        aba1190.26.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     921 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1190 OF 2026

1.   Bharat Bhikan Birhade

2.   Dipak Ramesh Birhade (Koli)                  ….Applicants

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                          …..Respondent

Mr. C. B. Chaudhari, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the State.

                               CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                               DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.   After hearing learned Counsel for both sides, when this Court

has shown disinclination to grant relief to Applicant No. 2 – Dipak

Ramesh    Birhade   (Koli),   learned   Counsel   for   Applicants,   on

instructions, seeks withdrawal of the application qua Applicant No. 2

– Dipak Ramesh Birhade (Koli).



2.   Application stands dismissed qua Applicant No. 2 -           Dipak

Ramesh Birhade (Koli) as withdrawn.



3.   Applicant No. 1 -Bharat Bhikan Birhade seeks pre-arrest bail

in connection with Crime No. 0050/2026 registered with Dhule
                                    -2-
                                                      aba1190.26.odt

Taluka police Station, District Dhule, for the offences punishable

under Sections 109(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 351(2),

351(3), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



4.    First Information Report shows that an incident had occurred

on 01.02.2026 at about 7.00 pm in which injured Rohit was taken

away from house and was assaulted.        There is specific allegation

against Applicant No. 2 -    Dipak Ramesh Birhade of causing stab

injury with knife to the injured.



5.    Learned Counsel for Applicants submits that admittedly there

is previous enmity between the parties which creates possibility of

false/over implication. It is his submission that insofar as Applicant

No. 1 is concerned, neither there is allegation that he was carrying

any weapon nor there was any actual assault caused by him. He,

therefore, seeks interim relief granted to Applicant No. 1 -   Bharat

Bhikan Birhade to be confirmed.



6.    Learned APP opposed grant of any relief to the Applicant by

contending that there are allegations against all the accused persons

of taking away the injured and causing serious injury to him.      To
                                 -3-
                                                       aba1190.26.odt

support this submission, reference is made to the injury certificate

indicating causing of stab injury to the informant.



7.    Prima facie perusal of First Information Report indicates that

there is no allegation against Applicant No. 1 of he being at the spot

with any weapon or caused any assault on the injured. Perusal of

injury certificate shows that stab injury is caused to the injured

which is attributable not to Applicant No. 1 but to Applicant No. 2.

There is nothing on record to show that Applicant Bharat has

misused the liberty.



8.    As a result of above discussion, it is a fit case to confirm the

interim relief granted in favour of Applicant No. 1    Bharat Bhikan

Birhade. Accordingly, interim relief granted in favour of Applicant No.

1 stands confirmed.


                                                 ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…