Bombay High Court
SIDDHARTH GRIMAJI UGHADE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The court held that, given the parity with the co‑accused and the lack of serious injury, anticipatory bail must be granted to the applicants.
Summary
The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with an assault case (Crime No.58/2025) under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from a land‑dispute fight on 14 March 2025. The prosecution alleged that the applicants assaulted the informant and witnesses, producing injury certificates as prima facie evidence. The applicants argued that a counter‑report had been filed, that a co‑accused (Sagar) had already been granted anticipatory bail, and that they had no prior criminal record. The court observed that the injuries were simple, the incident appeared to be a mutual fight, and parity with the already‑released co‑accused warranted similar relief. Consequently, the court allowed the anticipatory bail applications, subject to the exceptions specified in the interim orders.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants despite the allegations of assault and injury certificates.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused (Sagar) creates a parity requirement for the present applicants.
- Whether the nature and extent of injuries constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail.
- Whether any specific clauses of the interim orders exclude bail for the applicants.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 125(a), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- assault
- parity
- land dispute
- injury certificate
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
918 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1407 OF 2025
SIDDHARTH GRIMAJI UGHADE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
…
Mr. Manish Purushottam Tripathi, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. S. G. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 740 OF 2025
RUSTUM NAMDEO UGHADE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Mr. Pravin N Kalani, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. G. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.
No.58/2025, registered with Tadkalas Police Station, Dist. Parbhani, for the
offence punishable under Section 109, 118 (2), 118 (1), 115 (2), 125 (a),
352, 351(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
918 ABA 740.2025.odt 1 of 4
2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that, on 14.03.2025 at about
5:00 p.m., the informant and the witnesses were assaulted by the applicants
and the co-accused. The First Information Report refers to a pre-existing
dispute between the parties over agricultural land.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that applicant Maruti had
lodged a report in respect of the very same incident while he was undergoing
treatment in the hospital and that the present First Information Report has
been registered by way of a counterblast thereto. It is further submitted that
co-accused Sagar, against whom allegations of a similar nature have been
levelled, has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge by order dated 05.05.2025 and that the said order has not been
challenged by the prosecution. He, therefore, seeks grant of anticipatory bail
to the applicants both on merits and on the ground of parity.
4. Learned APP opposes the application. It is his submission that specific
allegations have been levelled against the present applicants of having
assaulted the informant and the witnesses. He draws the attention of the
Court to the injury certificates of the informant and the witnesses and
contends that the said material prima facie discloses the involvement of the
applicants in the crime.
918 ABA 740.2025.odt 2 of 4
5. Prima facie, a perusal of the investigation papers indicates that the
informant and the other witnesses sustained simple injuries, whereas
applicant Maruti was required to be hospitalized. Having regard to the
counter reports lodged in respect of the same incident, it appears that an
incident had indeed occurred on 14.03.2025 and the possibility that the
injuries were sustained in the course of a free fight between the two groups
cannot be ruled out. In the light of these circumstances, particularly when co-
accused Sagar, against whom allegations of a similar nature have been
levelled, has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, this Court finds no
justifiable reason to deny the benefit of parity to the present applicants. It is
also not disputed that the applicants have no criminal antecedents.
6. As far as applicant Laxman is concerned, there is an allegation that he,
along with co-accused Anil, assaulted Arvind on his head. Learned APP sought
to contend that the injury sustained by Arvind on his head lends support to
the allegations levelled against applicant Laxman.
7. As observed hereinabove, the material on record prima facie indicates
that the incident in question arose out of a fight between two groups. Though
applicant Laxman and co-accused Anil are alleged to have assaulted Arvind on
918 ABA 740.2025.odt 3 of 4
his head, the injury certificate indicates only a single injury on the head,
which is simple in nature. Having regard to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds no reason to reject the application
insofar as applicant Laxman is concerned.
8. In the facts of the case, applications are allowed in terms of interim
order dated 13.08.2025 and 05.05.2025 except clause (ii) and (B)
respectively.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
918 ABA 740.2025.odt 4 of 4
Checking your session…