Bombay High Court

SAINATH BHAUSAHEB GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that in the absence of any change in circumstances, a fresh anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained and must be dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Sainath Bhausaheb Gaikwak, filed an anticipatory bail application (No. 1292 of 2026) after a prior anticipatory bail request (No. 2188/2025) had been rejected on 11-12-2025 following the filing of a charge‑sheet. The State counsel argued that there was no material change in circumstances since the earlier application was dismissed after the charge‑sheet was filed. The applicant’s counsel contended that the applicant was not the prime accused, but did not dispute the earlier rejection. The Court examined whether the present application could be entertained in view of the earlier dismissal. Finding no change in factual or legal circumstances, the Court held that the fresh anticipatory bail application could not be entertained and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant can obtain anticipatory bail after a prior anticipatory bail application was rejected following the filing of a charge‑sheet
Whether any change in circumstances justifies granting a fresh anticipatory bail

Subjects

anticipatory bail
pre‑arrest bail
change in circumstances
bail application rejection
charge‑sheet

Judgment

                                 -1-
                                                        aba1292.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     923 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2026

Sainath Bhausaheb Gaikwad                          ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another                 …..Respondents

Mr. A. N. Barhate Patil, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for the State.

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


1.     At the outset, learned APP drew attention of the Court to the

fact that previous application for pre-arest bail has been rejected by

this Court by order dated 11.12.2025.      According to her, the said

application was rejected after filing of charge-sheet. She claims that

for want of change in circumstances, the present application is not

tenable.



2.    Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that the Applicant is

not the prime accused. He, however, does not dispute the fact that

after filing of the charge-sheet, order dated 11.12.2025 came to be

passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2188/2025.
                                -2-
                                                       aba1292.26.odt

3.    Admittedly, the previous bail application came to be rejected by

allowing its withdrawal after filing of charge-sheet.     As such, it

cannot be said that there is any change in the circumstances to

entertain the fresh application for pre-arrest bail.   Hence, on this

ground itself, the application deserves to be rejected and accordingly

stands dismissed.



                                                ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…