Bombay High Court
HANUMAN VAMAN MOREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SHYAM C CHANDAK
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, holding that no specific allegation against the applicant warranted custodial interrogation.
Summary
Hanuman Vaman More applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging his participation in a violent assault during a haldi ceremony. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including More, assaulted the informant’s family with sharp iron objects, causing injuries. More contended that the allegation of him being armed was vague, that he caused no serious injury, and that he is a public servant with no criminal record, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. The State argued that More was present at the scene, used dangerous weapons, and that bail should be denied given the seriousness of the offence. The Court found no specific allegation linking More to the use of the weapon, noted that the main accusations were against co‑accused, and considered his public‑servant status and clean record, consequently granting anticipatory bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita despite allegations of involvement in a serious assault
- Whether the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently links the applicant to the alleged use of a dangerous weapon
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 191(3), 310, 333, 79
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- assault
- public servant
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN
SHIV
H.C. SHIV 17-ABA-1399-2026.doc
Digitally signed by
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.06.05
20:46:00 +0300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1399 OF 2026
Hanuman Vaman More …. Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
Mr. Rahul S. Arote with Tanvi Mahadik with Nikita Gawai with Jay
Suryawanshi for the Applicant.
Ms. Rashmi Tendulkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Vijay Sahebrao Dakhore, PSI, Kalyan Taluka police station.
CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 3rd JUNE, 2026
(VACATION COURT)
P.C. :-
. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in C. R. No.251 of 2026 under
Sections 310, 115(2), 189(2), 191(3), 333, 79, 118(1) of the the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita registered with Kalyan Taluka police station on the report
dated 12th March, 2026 filed by Dinesh Kashivale.
2) Heard Mr.Arote, learned Counsel for the Applicant and
Ms.Tendulkar, learned APP for the Respondent-State.
3) The prosecution case is that on 11th March 2026, at about 00.30 hours
pm, at village Chinchvali, a quarrel occurred during Haldi ceremony on
account of which the accused persons, namely, Tushar, Chetan, Sunil and
Akshay assaulted the son of the informant. At about 00.45 hours, the
1/4
H.C. SHIV 17-ABA-1399-2026.doc
Applicant and seven others went to house of the informant. Four of them,
caught hold of the hair of informant’s wife and his two daughters, pulled
them out of the house and gave fist and kick blows. Accused Tushar More
snatched the marriage string from the person of the informant’s wife.
Accused Sunil More and co-accused Akshay More snatched the chain from
the person of the informant’s daughters. They also abused the three women.
Therefore, the informant intervened. However, accused Sunil More
assaulted him by means of an iron rod and caused him minor injury.
Accused Tushar snatched the chain and accused Akshay snatched two rings
from the person of informant. Villagers namely Vijay Kashivale and Mahesh
Kashivale came to intervene and stop the quarrel. However, the Applicant,
accused Tushar, Chetan, Sunil and Akshay assaulted the two by means of
sharp iron object over head, back and hands and caused them injuries.
Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. The Anticipatory Bail
Application filed by the Applicant came to be rejected by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan.
4) Mr. Arote, the learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
incident has occurred all of sudden. The allegation that the Applicant was
armed with a sharp iron object is vague, contradictory and false. The
Applicant has not caused any serious injury to any of the injured persons.
All the weapons allegedly used in the offence have been recovered.
Therefore, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not needed. He further
submitted that the Applicant is a public servant and therefore, he has been
2/4
H.C. SHIV 17-ABA-1399-2026.doc
falsely involved in the FIR. Therefore, the Applicant is entitled for bail.
5) Ms. Tendulkar, learned APP strongly opposed the Application. She
has submitted that the Applicant was present at the spot during the
occurrence. The Applicant and the co-accused have assaulted the victims
with dangerous weapons. Injured Vijay has sustained a grievous injury. As
such, the offence is serious. The custodial interrogation of the Applicant is
essential to recover the weapon he has used in the offence. Therefore, bail
may be refused.
6) I have considered these submissions. It is alleged in the FIR that
witness Vijay Kashivale and Mahesh Kashivale were attacked by the
Applicant and other co-accused by means of sharp iron object. However, the
learned APP submitted that, according to witness Vijay Kashivale, the
Applicant was having an iron rod which is contradictory to the FIR. There is
no specific allegation against the Applicant that he had used either of the
said weapon against a specific victim and caused him some injury. As such,
custodial interrogation of the Applicant does not appear necessary. The
main allegations are against the co-accused. After filing of the FIR, the iron
rod and knife are recovered by the I.O. The co-accused Chetan and Karan
have been released on bail. Mr. Arote submitted that the Applicant is a
public servant working with Indian Railways. The Applicant has no criminal
antecedents. He is not likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence and
abscond.
7) In the wake of above, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail
3/4
H.C. SHIV 17-ABA-1399-2026.doc
on certain terms. Hence, the following Order :-
(a) The Application is allowed.
(b) In the event of arrest of the Applicant-Hanuman Vaman More
in connection with FIR No.251 of 2026 registered with Kalyan
Taluka police station under Sections 310, 115(2), 189(2), 191(3),
333, 79, 118(1) of the the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, he shall be
forthwith released on bail, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(c) The Applicant shall attend before Investigating Officer at
Kalyan Taluka police station from 5th to 7th June 2026 between
11.00 am to 4 pm and thereafter as and when required.
(d) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
and shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.
(e) The Applicant shall attend each and every date before the trial
Court, unless exempted by such Court, and cooperate for
expeditious disposal of the said case.
(f) The Applicant shall not commit any offence.
(g) If the Applicant disobeys any of the above conditions, the
anticipatory bail granted herein shall stand cancelled without
further reference to this Court or the trial Court.
8) Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
4/4
Checking your session…