Bombay High Court

NARAYAN SANJAY BORUDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond and comply with reporting and non‑interference conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Narayan Sanjay Borude, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR alleging that he assaulted an informant with an iron rod, causing injuries to the neck and knees. The applicant argued that there were disputes between the parties, the FIR was lodged after a delay, and the medical certificate did not corroborate the alleged neck injury, suggesting false or over‑implication, while the alleged weapon had already been seized. The State contended that a medical certificate from Sai Mauli Super Speciality Hospital confirmed grievous injuries and that the vehicle used in the assault was yet to be seized, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court noted the lack of medical evidence for the neck injury, the delay in filing the FIR, and the seizure of the iron rod, concluding that these factors raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.15,000 personal bond, weekly police reporting, and prohibitions on contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged assault with serious injuries under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the existence of a dispute between the parties affect the grant of bail.
Whether the absence of medical evidence of the alleged neck injury and the seizure of the alleged weapon justify bail.
What conditions, if any, should be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115, 118, 189, 190, 351, 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
assault
false implication
medical evidence
delay in FIR
bail conditions
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

                                  -1-
                                                        aba1390.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     931 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1390 OF 2026

Narayan Sanjay Borude                            ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another               …..Respondents

Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the State.

                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                              DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026.
PER COURT :


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

0692/2026     registered   with   Pathardi   Police   Station,   District

Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(2),

115(2), 351(2), 190, 189(2), 189(4), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



2.    First Information Report indicates that the incident had

occurred on 29.05.2026 in which the present Applicant is said to

have assaulted the informant with iron rod causing injury to his neck

as well as knees.



3.    Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that from the First

Information Report itself it is clear that there are disputes between
                                 -2-
                                                        aba1390.26.odt

the parties and in view of the said fact, delay caused in lodging of the

First Information Report assumes relevance.         It is   his further

submission that there is allegation in the First Information Report

with regard to assault being caused on the neck of the informant

resulting into causing of injury. However, the medical certificate does

not indicate of any such injury. He, therefore, claims that this could

be a case of false/over implication. In any case, it is his submission

that since the iron rod allegedly used in the crime has already been

seized, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary.



4.    Learned APP opposed the application by referring to the

allegations against the Applicant in the First Information Report. It

is his submission that the said allegations are supported by medical

certificate issued by Sai Mauli Super Speciality Hospital indicating

causing of grievous injury to the informant. It is his submission that

though iron rod has been seized, the vehicle is yet to be seized.



5.    Learned Counsel for informant vehemently opposed the

application by submitting that this is a case of brutal assault being

caused by the Applicant on the informant.        She placed on record

documents pertaining to Sai Mauli Super Speciality Hospital in order
                                    -3-
                                                         aba1390.26.odt

to support her submissions about causing of grievous injury to the

knee of the informant. According to her, if Applicant is granted pre-

arrest bail, there is likelihood of danger to the informant.



6.    Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report itself

indicates that there are disputes between the parties. In the light of

the said fact, the delay caused in lodging of the report cannot be

ignored.   Apart from this, there is specific allegation in the First

Information Report about injury being caused to the neck of the

Applicant on account of assault with iron rod.         Perusal of police

papers do not indicate any such injury being caused. The medical

papers placed on record by the informant himself refer to no such

injury. Pertinently, on the same day, the Applicant had visited the

hospital and as such, it is not possible that causing of such injury

with iron rod to the neck of the Applicant would not be seen and

hence the only prima facie conclusion which can be drawn from this

fact as argued by learned Counsel for the Applicant is that this could

be a case of false/over implication. In the light of these facts and in

view of the fact that the iron rod allegedly used in the incident has

already been seized, liberty of the Applicant deserves to be protected.

Appropriate       directions   to    the   Applicant   to      attend   the
                                   -4-
                                                        aba1390.26.odt

concerned police station on requisite dates would be sufficient for

investigation. In order to ensure that the informant’s apprehension is

also taken care, Applicant is directed to appear before the concerned

Investigating Officer once in a week till filing of the charge-sheet.

Application is allowed in following terms :-

                                  ORDER



        (i)     In the event of arrest of applicant Narayan
        Sanjay    Borude,    in   connection    with   Crime   No.
        0692/2026 registered with Pathardi Police Station,
        District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under
        Sections 109, 118(2), 115(2), 351(2), 190, 189(2),
        189(4), 352 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 once
        in a week till filing of the charge-sheet.


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


        (iv)    He shall not interfere with the evidence in any
        manner whatsoever.
                                 -5-
                                                        aba1390.26.odt

      (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…