Bombay High Court

ROHIDAS KESHAV AHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 27 July 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

The court held that custodial interrogation was not required as the injuries were simple and consequently granted anticipatory bail.

Summary

The applicant, Rohidas Keshav Aher, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case (C.R. No.116/2026) for offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that on 30‑04‑2026 the applicant and co‑accused assaulted the first informant with a sickle intending to kill him. The applicant contended that the injuries were simple and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, seeking bail. The State highlighted three prior antecedents and argued that interrogation was required. After reviewing the FIR and medical report, the court found the injuries to be simple, concluded that custodial interrogation was not warranted, and granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs 30,000 with one or two sureties, directing the applicant to cooperate with the police as required. The order was limited to bail and the trial court was directed to decide the case on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the alleged injuries are simple in nature.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the present case despite the applicant's antecedents.
Whether the nature of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 warrants denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 3(5), 351(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
simple injuries
custodial interrogation
Nashik
bond
sureties

Judgment

                                                             13-ABA-1846-2026 (CR).doc


Tikam


                     IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1846 OF 2026

                                    Rohidas Keshav Aher
                                           Versus
                                  The State of Maharashtra

        _________________________________________________________________

        Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate for Applicant.
        Smt. R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
        _________________________________________________________________

                                             CORAM       :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                             DATE        :   27th JULY, 2026.
        P.C. :

        1.           Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for

        the State.

        2.           The Applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No.116/2026

        registered with Wadhivare Police Station, Dist. Nashik, for the offence

        punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya

        Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS).

        3.           It is prosecution’s case that on 30/04/2026, Applicant and co-

        accused assaulted the first informant with sickle with intention to kill him.

        4.           It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that

        injuries suffered by the first informant are simple in nature. Considering

        this fact, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and



                                         Page 1 of 3
                                                            13-ABA-1846-2026 (CR).doc


Tikam


        requested to allow the application.

        5.          It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant has three

        antecedents. Applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant with

        intention to kill him.    Yet sickle used in crime, is to be recovered.

        Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required

        and requested to reject the application.

        6.          I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the FIR and

        documents produced on record.          The injuries suffered by the first

        informant     are simple in nature. Considering this fact, custodial

        interrogation of the applicant is not required and I pass following order.

                                          ORDER

        (i)         In the even of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.

        No.116/2026 registered with Wadhivare Police Station, Dist. Nashik, on

        executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in

        the like amount.

        (ii)        The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and

        when required.

                 The application is allowed in above terms and stands disposed of.

                 7.           It is made clear that the above observations           are

                 made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court

                 shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law


                                         Page 2 of 3
                                                13-ABA-1846-2026 (CR).doc


Tikam


        and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

        8.            All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of

        this order.




                                     (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                               Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…