Bombay High Court
SANJAY BAJIRAO VETAL AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to Applicant 2 but denied to Applicant 1.
Summary
The applicants, Sanjay Bajirao Vetal and Abhijit Sanjay Vetal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 205 of 2026 alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that Applicant 1 assaulted the informant with a weapon, supported by an injury certificate, while Applicant 2 was only alleged to have caught hold of the informant and faced no weapon‑related charge. The court noted that false implication could be possible for Applicant 2 and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary for him, whereas for Applicant 1 the presence of a weapon and injury warranted interrogation. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed for Applicant 1 but granted to Applicant 2, confirming interim relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Applicant 1 in view of the alleged assault with a weapon.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Applicant 2 where only a minor allegation of catching hold exists.
- Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for each applicant.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- custodial interrogation
- false implication
- assault
- weapon
- injury certificate
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42540
27-ABA-1202-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1202 OF 2026
1. Sanjay Bajirao Vetal
2. Abhijit Sanjay Vetal ..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
....
Mr. Shaikh M.A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for applicants
Ms. P.J. Bharad, A.P.P. for respondent - State
....
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.
205 of 2026 registered with Rahata Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar for the
offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 189(2), 190
and 191(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no
allegation against Applicant No.2 – Abhijit Snajay Vetal that he was carrying
any weapon or causing hurt to any injured or the informant. The only
allegation against Applicant No.2 – Abhijit Sanjay Vetal is that he caught hold
of the informant. He further contends that custodial interrogation of
applicants is not necessary. According to him, considering the previous
1 / 3
27-ABA-1202-26.odt
disputes between the parties, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled
out.
3. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the
grant of any relief to the applicants by referring the allegations against them
in the F.I.R. According to them, the allegations in the F.I.R. are supported by
the injury certificate on record. As far as recovery of weapon is concerned,
custodial interrogation of Applicant No.1 is necessary.
4. Prima facie, perusal of record and contention of learned counsel
for Applicant No.2 indicates that there are disputes between the parties and
on going through the same, possibility of false implication is not ruled out.
There is no allegation against Applicant No.2 that he carried any weapon or
caused any assault. As far as Applicant No.2 is concerned, it is not a case
where his custodial interrogation is necessary. There is nothing on record to
show that this applicant has misused the liberty granted to him.
5. As far as Applicant No.1 is concerned, report lodged by the
informant indicates specific allegation of assault with a weapon against
Applicant No.1. It is not a case where said allegation is not supported by any
material on record. Injury certificate indicates causing grievous injury to the
informant. Since weapon is being used in the said incident, for recovery of
2 / 3
27-ABA-1202-26.odt
the same custodial interrogation of Applicant No.1 is necessary. As such,
application deserves to be dismissed qua Applicant No.1 - Sanjay Bajirao Vetal
and same is accordingly dismissed.
6. Anticipatory bail application is allowed to the extent of Applicant
No.2 – Abhijit Sanjay Vetal, by confirming the interim relief.
( R.M. JOSHI, J. )
SSD
3 / 3
Checking your session…