Bombay High Court
AJAY MOHAN BENDWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
No change in circumstances was found; the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Ajay Mohan Bendwal, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case involving alleged assault with an axe, citing sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(4), 191(2) and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He argued that the investigation had concluded with a charge‑sheet that lacked evidential support for his involvement, pointing to video transcripts and the recovery of weapons thrown at the scene. The State opposed, stating there was no change in circumstances since the applicant’s earlier pre‑arrest bail application had been rejected on 1 December 2025. The Court observed that the evidence relied upon by the applicant had already been considered in the earlier order, and revisiting that decision would amount to an impermissible review. Consequently, the Court held that there was no material change warranting a fresh consideration and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail application can be entertained in view of the earlier rejection of a pre‑arrest bail application on the same facts.
- Whether a change in circumstances exists that justifies granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the court can review its earlier order rejecting pre‑arrest bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- change in circumstances
- review of order
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42084
903-ABA-1734-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
903 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1734 OF 2026
Ajay Mohan Bendwal
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Ms. R. L. Jakhade, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondents/State
CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE :SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
P. C. :
1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.
229/2025 registered with Police Station Shirpur City, District Dhule for the
offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(4),
191(2), 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. First information report indicates occurrence of incident on
28.04.2025 in which the informant and witnesses were assaulted by the
present Applicant and co-accused. There is allegation against present
Applicant that he assaulted Tarachand with axe.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that investigation
into the crime is complete with filing of the charge-sheet. According to her,
though there is allegation against present Applicant in the FIR, the same is
not supported by the evidence collected during the course of investigation.
To support this submission, she drew attention of the Court to the transcript
Page 1 of 3
903-ABA-1734-2026.odt
of video indicating that no weapon is said to have been seen in the hands of
present Applicant. It is her further submission that there is allegation against
more than 1 person causing assault on Tarachand, as such, grievous injury
caused to Tarachand cannot be attributed to present Applicant. She also
drew attention of the Court to the fact that there is recovery of weapons,
which were thrown by the assailants by the spot. As such, her contention is
that there is no question of custodial interrogation of the Applicant.
4. At the outset, learned APP opposed maintainability of the
Application on the ground that there is no change in circumstance. He drew
attention of the Court to order passed by this Court rejecting pre-arrest bail
of the Applicant wherein it is recorded that the evidence, which is now
sought to be relied upon, was already considered by this Court while
rejecting the said application. On merits, he also opposed the application.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the previous pre-arrest bail
application filed by the Applicant before this Court came to be rejected by
order dated 01.12.2025 passed in ABA No. 1673/2025. Observations made I
paragraph 7 of the said order indicates that the evidence, which is now
sought to be relied upon by the Applicant, was duly considered while
rejecting said application. Taking any different view would amount to
review of said order, which is not permissible in law. Hence, on this count as
well as in view of the fact that there is no change in circumstance,
Page 2 of 3
903-ABA-1734-2026.odt
application deserves no consideration.
6. In view of above, application stands dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…