Bombay High Court

PAWAN SITARAM PARDHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, finding insufficient evidence of serious injury and a likelihood of false implication.

Summary

Pawan Sitaram Pardhi applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered for alleged attempts to kill an informant with a wooden log, invoking sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 352 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The informant claimed the applicant threatened him, but the applicant argued that the dispute between them raised a possibility of false implication and that the injury certificate only showed a simple injury, not a serious assault. The State pointed to the injury certificate and prior threats made by the applicant to a police officer as reasons to deny bail. The court observed that the allegations were not substantiated by the injury certificate, the weapon had already been seized, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions including a personal bond, attendance at the police station, non‑contact with witnesses, and non‑interference with evidence.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted for offences under sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 352 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the existence of an injury certificate and prior threats by the applicant preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the present circumstances.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 296, 351(3), 352 r/w 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
injury certificate
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
bail conditions
dispute between parties

Judgment

                                -1-
                                                     aba1351.26.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     923 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1351 OF 2026

Pawan Sitaram Pardhi                           ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                       …..Respondent

Mr. M. R. Wagh, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the State.

                             CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                             DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.   Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

0263/2026, registered with Chopda City Police Station, District

Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 296, 115(2),

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



2.   First informant Deepak lodged report in respect of the incident

occurred on 17.06.2026 in which he claims that he was sought to be

killed by the present Applicant by assaulting him with a wooden log.

He refers to the previous dispute between the parties so also the

threats issued by the Applicant to him.
                                   -2-
                                                          aba1351.26.odt

3.    Learned Counsel for Applicant submits there are disputes

between the parties and as such possibility of false/over implication

is not ruled out.     According to him, the allegations in the First

Information Report are not supported by the injury certificate. He,

therefore, seeks liberty of the Applicant be protected.



4.    Learned APP opposed grant of any protection to the Applicant

by contending that there is injury certificate indicating causing of

injury to the informant which supports occurrence of the incident on

the fateful day. Apart from this, it is his submission that the present

Applicant had earlier threatened the police officer and as such, he is

not entitled to pre-arrest bail.



5.    Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report so also

record indicates that there are disputes between the parties. Once

there are pre-existing disputes, possibility of over implication exists.

Though allegations are that the Applicant attempted to kill the

informant, however, the same are not supported by the injury

certificate which indicates causing of one simple injury to the

informant. It is a matter of record that the weapon is already seized

from the spot itself and as such custodial interrogation of the
                                         -3-
                                                               aba1351.26.odt

Applicant is not necessary. Hence, application is allowed in following

terms :-

                                        ORDER

           (i)     In the event of arrest of applicant Pawan Sitaram
           Pardhi, in connection with 0263/2026, registered with
           Chopda City Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the
           offences punishable under Sections 109, 296, 115(2),
           351(3), 352 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.


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


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


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


           (v)     He    is   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…