Bombay High Court

PRAVIN PRAKASHRAO JAGTAP AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that due to serious doubt about the identity of the assailants and the risk of false implication, anticipatory bail must be granted to the applicants with appropriate conditions.

Summary

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 332/2025, which alleged offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR indicated that the informant was initially assaulted by a single person and later by a group, without naming the applicants, and the applicants argued that the FIR does not implicate them. The State highlighted eyewitness statements and an injury certificate showing multiple injuries to the informant, contending that bail should be denied. The court observed a serious doubt regarding the identity of the assailants, especially noting that one applicant is physically handicapped, making attribution unlikely. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to applicant No.2 and conditioned the release of applicant No.1 on a bond and compliance with specific directions.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the FIR does not specifically name the accused and there is doubt about their involvement
Whether the possibility of false implication warrants the grant of bail
What conditions, if any, should be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296-B

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
identity of assailants
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
bail conditions

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

22 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2081 OF 2025

PRAVIN PRAKASHRAO JAGTAP AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the Respondent/State

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 332/2025,

registered with Majalgaon Rural Police Station, District Beed, for the offences

punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 296-B, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3)

and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the First Information

Report does not indicate that the applicants were the assailants. It is

mentioned therein that subsequently the informant came to know the names

of the owners of the hotel in which the alleged incident had occurred.

According to him, having regard to these facts, the liberty of the applicants

deserves to be protected.

3. Learned APP opposed the grant of protection to the applicants by

22 ABA 2081.2025.odt 1 of 3
referring to the First Information Report as well as the statements of two

eyewitnesses. He also drew attention of the Court to the injury certificate on

record, indicating that at least five injuries were caused to the informant. It is

his contention that, having regard to the material on record, this is not a case

where any protection ought to be granted to the applicants.

4. Prima facie, perusal of the First Information Report does not indicate

that initially more than one person had assaulted the informant. On the

contrary, the informant states that he was being assaulted by one person and,

thereafter, 5 to 6 other persons came to the spot and assaulted him. He does

not refer to the names of the applicants; rather, it is only on the basis of the

information subsequently received by him that the hotel was owned by the

present applicants.

5. In such circumstances, a serious doubt is created not only with regard

to the occurrence of the incident but also with regard to the identity of the

assailants. Having regard to the fact that one of the applicants has become

handicapped due to amputation of one leg, it becomes difficult to attribute

the alleged assault to him.

6 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the

possibility of false implication/over-implication, the application deserves to be

22 ABA 2081.2025.odt 2 of 3
allowed. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) Application of applicant No.2 is allowed by confirming
order dated 26.11.2025.

(ii) In the event of arrest of applicant No.1, Pravin
Prakashrao Jagtap, in connection with Crime No. 332/2025,
registered with Majalgaon Rural Police Station, District Beed,
for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 296-
B, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR
Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount.

(iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.

(v) He further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.

(vi) He shall attend the concerned Police Station on
15.09.2026 between 11.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m.

7. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp

22 ABA 2081.2025.odt 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…