Bombay High Court
SATISH VITTHAL BAGULversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
Custodial interrogation is required and the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Summary
The applicant, Vaishali Anil Tikam, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in Crime No. 351 of 2026, which alleges assault, outrage of modesty, and attempted homicide under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleges that on 10 April 2026 the applicant, along with co‑accused, assaulted the first informant and her husband with a hockey stick, causing grievous injuries. The applicant contended that the FIR is false, motivated by a personal vendetta after his sister lodged a complaint, and that the police demanded a bribe, leading to his arrest through the Anti‑Corruption Bureau. The State argued that the applicant has antecedents and that the injury certificate and X‑ray substantiate the serious nature of the offences, warranting custodial interrogation. After examining the FIR, medical evidence, and the delay in lodging the complaint, the Court held that custodial interrogation is necessary and rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the serious allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the claim of false implication affect the grant of bail.
- Whether custodial interrogation is required despite the applicant's claim of innocence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 351(3), 352, 74, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- custodial interrogation
- assault
- outrage of modesty
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- false complaint
- delay in FIR
- bail rejection
Judgment
31-ABA-1728-2026.doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1728 OF 2026
VAISHALI Satish Vitthal Bagul
ANIL VERSUS
TIKAM
State Of Maharashtra And Anr
Digitally signed
_________________________________________________________________
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date: Mr. Eknath Dhokale, Advocate for Applicant.
2026.08.11
12:28:44 +0530 Mr. S.R.Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. C.H. Kadnor, Malegaon Taluka Police Station,Dist. Nashik present. s
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for
the State.
2. Applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 351 of 2026
registered with Malegaon Taluka Police Station, Dist. Nashik for the
offences punishable under Sections. 109, 118(2), 74,76, 115(2), 126(2),
352, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
3. It is prosecution's case that on 10/04/2026, Applicant and co-
accused assaulted the first informant and her husband with hockey stick
and outraged modesty of the first informant and tried to throttle her with
intention to kill her.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that
Page 1 of 3
31-ABA-1728-2026.doc
Tikam
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Earlier two days of this
FIR, Applicant's sister lodged complaint against the first informant's family.
To take revenge of it, this false complaint is filed against the Applicant.
Learned counsel further submitted that police demanded bribe from the
applicant. Applicant got arrested the concerned police officer through
Anti Corruption Bureau. Hence, the present FIR is lodged against the
Applicant. He further submitted that there is delay of 14 days in lodging
the complaint. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the
Applicant is not required and requested to allow the Application.
5. It is contention of learned APP that applicant had antecedents.
The injury certificate of the first informant shows that she has suffered
facture injury to her hand. She has suffered grievous injuries. Considering
the allegations against the Applicant, his custodial interrogation is required
and requested to reject the Application.
6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the FIR and
document produced on record. There are specific allegations against the
Applicant that he assaulted the husband of the first informant with hockey
stick at that time first informant intervened in the said assault and at the
relevant time Applicant assaulted on left hand of first informant. The X-
ray of left hand of first informant dated 10/04/2026 shows she has
suffered facture injury to her left hand. The injury certificate produced on
Page 2 of 3
31-ABA-1728-2026.doc
Tikam
record shows she has suffered grievous injuries. There was delay in
lodging the complaint as first informant was admitted in the hospital. The
hockey stick used in the crime is yet to be recovered. Considering these
facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required and I pass
following order.
ORDER
(i) Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…