Bombay High Court
RAM KUSHABA MOKASHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, confirming the interim order dated 24‑12‑2025, subject to the exclusion of clauses (ii) and (iii).
Summary
Ram Kushaba Mokashe applied for anticipatory bail in connection with offences under Sections 109 and 49 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arising from an alleged attempt to kill a person by driving a tractor. The FIR dated 17‑10‑2025 records serious injuries to the informant, who claims the applicant tried to run him over. The applicant contended that there is an ongoing civil dispute over agricultural land, raising the possibility of false or over‑implication. The State opposed bail, relying on the FIR and the injury certificate. The Court observed that the property dispute creates a genuine likelihood of false implication, the investigation is essentially complete, and there is no evidence of the applicant misusing liberty, and therefore confirmed the interim bail order of 24‑12‑2025, except for clauses (ii) and (iii). Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite the serious injury allegations in the FIR
- Whether the existence of a civil property dispute creates a sufficient ground to suspect false implication warranting bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 49 r/w 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- property dispute
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- injury certificate
- interim relief
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:34129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
955 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2281 OF 2025
RAM KUSHABA MOKASHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Mr. Bhargav Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A. V. Lawate, APP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 6th AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Applicant seeks pre arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 487/2025,
registered with Ashti Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable
under Sections 109, 49 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
2. The First Information Report was lodged on 17.10.2025 in respect of an
incident that occurred on 16.10.2025 at about 8:30 a.m. The first informant
claims that the applicant drove the tractor and attempted to kill him.
According to him, in the said incident, the informant sustained serious injuries
and required hospitalization.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the documents on
record indicate that there are disputes between the parties over the property
and that civil proceedings are pending. It is his submission that, in such
955 ABA 2281.2025.odt 1 of 2
circumstances, the possibility of false implication/over-implication cannot be
ruled out.
4. Learned APP opposed the grant of any interim protection to the
applicant by referring to the allegations against him in the First Information
Report, which are supported by the injury certificate.
5. Prima facie, perusal of the record shows that there are disputes
between the parties over the agricultural lands. Since there are disputes, the
possibility of false implication/over-implication cannot be completely ruled
out. In the light of this fact, perusal of the investigation papers does not
indicate that any history of the injured having been driven over or dashed by
the tractor was given to the Medical Officer. In such circumstances, the
possibility of false implication/over-implication cannot be ruled out. In any
case, the investigation is now practically over, with the seizure of the tractor
also having been effected. This Court finds no reason not to confirm the
interim relief granted on 24.12.2025. There is no allegation that the applicant
has misused the liberty. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of the
interim order dated 24.12.2025, except clause Nos. (ii) and (iii).
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
955 ABA 2281.2025.odt 2 of 2
Checking your session…