Bombay High Court

ABHIJIT SURESH BANSODE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary and granted anticipatory bail to the applicants with conditions.

Summary

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0129/2026, alleging assault on an informant with grievous and simple injuries. The FIR alleged that Abhijeet used a sickle, Rohit used an iron rod, while Akash was accused of assault without any weapon. The applicants argued that the alleged weapons had already been seized and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the injury certificate. The court examined whether further custodial interrogation was required and found that, given the seizure of weapons and lack of evidence linking Akash to a weapon, it was not. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to all three applicants with standard conditions and a personal bond of Rs.15,000 each.

Issues considered

Whether custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary in view of the seized weapons.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
Whether the evidence presented links each applicant to the alleged injuries and weapons.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
pre‑arrest bail
custodial interrogation
assault
weapon seizure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
bail conditions

Judgment

                                   -1-
                                                        aba1191.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     919 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1191 OF 2026

1.    Abhijeet Suresh Bansode

2.    Akash Sanjay Shelar

3.    Rohit Harishchandra Dhotre                  ….Applicants

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another                …..Respondents
…..

Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for the Applicants.
Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the State.

                                 CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                 DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :


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

0129/2026    registered   with    Mirajgaon   Police   Station,   District

Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1),

118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita.



2.    First Information Report indicates that the incident had

occurred on 11.04.2026 at about 11.30 pm in which present

Applicants and five other persons caused assault on the informant.
                                  -2-
                                                       aba1191.26.odt

There is allegation against Applicant Abhijeet of using sickle and

Rohit of using iron rod to cause said assault. Insofar as Applicant

Akash is concerned, though it is claimed that he caused injury, there

is no reference of using any weapon by him.



3.    Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that during the

pendency of the application for pre-arrest bail before the Sessions

Court, liberty of the Applicants was protected and pursuant to the

order passed by the Sessions Court, they appeared before the

Investigating Officer and cooperated in the investigation. He submits

that the alleged weapons used in the assault are 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 First Information

Report so also injury certificate which according to her, shows

causing of two grievous injuries and four simple injuries. It is her

contention, having regard to the nature of offence, that this is not a

case to protect the liberty of the Applicants.
                                 -3-
                                                       aba1191.26.odt

5.    For the purpose of grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail, the Court

is required to see as to whether custodial interrogation of the

Applicants is necessary. Though there is allegation against Applicant

Akash of causing assault on the informant, statement of the

informant himself and eye witnesses do not indicate he carrying any

weapon or as to weapon by which he caused assault. Having regard

to the said fact, grievous injuries cannot be attributed to him.

Prosecution is seeking to make out case against Applicant Akash for

the said injury. In this backdrop, when there is already recovery of

weapon, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned

Counsel for the Applicants that this is not a case of further custodial

interrogation of the Applicants. Hence, application stands allowed in

following terms :-

                               ORDER

        (i)   In the event of arrest of applicants Abhijeet
        Suresh Bansode, Akash Sanjay Shelar and Rohit
        Harishchandra Dhotre, in connection with Crime No.
        0129/2026 registered with Mirajgaon Police Station,
        District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under
        Sections 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 189(2),
        190, 191(2), 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, they
        be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of
                                -4-
                                                        aba1191.26.odt

      Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) each with
      one surety in the like amount.


      (ii)    They shall attend the concerned police station as
      and when called.


      (iii)   They shall not contact the witnesses directly or
      indirectly.


      (iv)    They shall not interfere with the evidence in any
      manner whatsoever.


      (v)     They are further directed to cooperate the
      investigating agency for further investigation.


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



                                               ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…