Bombay High Court
SHASHIKANT ALIAS VINAY NANASAHEB KOKATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that there was no change in circumstances and therefore dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Shashikant Kokate, filed a second anticipatory bail application after his first was rejected on 18 July 2026. He argued that the filing of a charge‑sheet and an injury certificate indicated a change in circumstances that warranted bail. The respondent contended that no further investigation had been conducted after the first order and that the injury certificate dated 13 July 2026 had already been before the court, so there was no material change. The court examined the record, noted the absence of any post‑order investigation, and held that the circumstances remained unchanged. Consequently, the court dismissed the second anticipatory bail application, emphasizing that granting relief without a change in facts would set a wrong precedent.
Issues considered
- Whether a second anticipatory bail application can be entertained when there is no change in circumstances after a prior rejection
- Whether the filing of a charge‑sheet and an injury certificate constitute a material change justifying anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- change of circumstances
- charge-sheet
- investigation
- bail application
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43463
902-ABA-1797-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1797 OF 2026
Shashikant Alias Vinay Nanasaheb Kokate
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for Applicant
Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondents/State
CORAM :R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE :SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
P. C. :
1. This is second bail application seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with C.R. No. 190/2026 registered with Police Station Yermala,
District Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1),
115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. First bail application came to be rejected on 18.07.2026 since
this Court has shown disinclination to grant relief to present Applicant.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that pursuant to the
said order, charge-sheet has been filed and, therefore, there is chance in
circumstances. It is his submission on the basis of first information report as
well as injury certificate that there is no offence made out against the
present Applicant.
Page 1 of 2
902-ABA-1797-2026.odt
4. Learned APP drew attention of the Court to the fact that after
18.07.2026, there is no further investigation done in the instant case. It is
thus her contention that there is no change in circumstance to entertain the
application.
5. Perusal of the record indicates that the injury certificate, which
forms the part of charge-sheet is dated 13.07.2026. This Court has passed
order on 18.07.2026. There is no reason to believe that this certificate was
not produced before this Court at that time. In absence of any further
investigation being carried out by the investigating agency post order dated
18.07.2026, this Court is of the view that there is no change in circumstance
to entertain present second bail application. Entertaining such application,
without change in circumstance, would lead to laying down wrong
precedent.
6. In view of above, Application stands dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…