Bombay High Court
BIRU ALIAS BIRAPPA DNYANESHWAR THORBOLE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, confirming the interim protection, subject to conditions.
Summary
The five applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with a kidnapping and assault case (Crime No.193 of 2024) alleging offences under multiple IPC sections and the Maharashtra Police Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicants kidnapped the complainant, tied him to a tree, assaulted him with an iron rod, stick and belt, and stole his mobile phone. The applicants contended they were falsely implicated as a retaliatory counter‑FIR to an earlier case, asserted that the complainant suffered only simple injuries, and highlighted their clean record and compliance with an interim protection order dated 15‑May‑2026. The court noted the 17‑day delay in filing the FIR, the simple nature of the injuries, the possibility of the FIR being a counter‑blast, and the fact that the applicants had not violated any interim conditions. Consequently, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application, confirmed the interim protection, and imposed standard conditions for cooperation with the investigating officer.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the seriousness of the alleged offences under the IPC and Maharashtra Police Act.
- Whether the 17‑day delay in lodging the FIR and the existence of a counter‑FIR affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicants have violated any conditions of the interim protection order previously granted.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 327, 342, 365, 504, 506
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- assault
- IPC
- Maharashtra Police Act
- delay in FIR
- counter FIR
- simple injuries
- bail conditions
Judgment
1
30-ABA-2492-2025 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2492 OF 2025
1. Biru Alias Birappa Dnyaneshwar Thorbole
2. Laxman Kondiba Goykar
3. Uttam Sakharam Goykar
4. Shankar Sakharam Goykar
5. Maruti Sakharam Goykar ...Applicants
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
-----
Mr. Pratik Prakash Jadhav (Through VC), for Applicants.
Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Digitally signed
SHANTANU
SHANKARSA
by SHANTANU
SHANKARSA
DHUDUM
-----
Date:
DHUDUM 2026.06.24
14:34:25
+0530
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned APP
for the Respondent-State.
2. The Applicants have approached this Court seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.193 of 2024 registered
with Jath Police Station, District: Sangli, for the offences punishable
under Sections, 327, 365, 324, 323, 342, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148 and
149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Section 135
of the Maharashtra Police Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, complainant – Valmik K.
Dombale was sleeping in front of his house, when the Applicants
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
30-ABA-2492-2025 (CR).DOC
allegedly came there on a motorcycle and kidnapped him. It is further
alleged that they tied him to a tree, and assaulted him with iron rod,
stick and belt and also snatched his mobile phone. Hence, the
complainant has lodged the F.I.R. against the present Applicants.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Pratik Jadhav appearing for the
Applicants submits that Applicants are falsely implicated in the
present crime. The present F.I.R. bearing No.193 of 2024 is a
counterblast to the earlier F.I.R. bearing No.165 of 2024 dated
22/03/2024 filed by Accused No.9 – Sakshi Goykar against the
present complainant - Valmik K. Dombale, in resepct of incident dated
21/03/2024. It is submitted that all the Applicant Nos.1 to 5 have
been deliberately roped in only with an intention to wreak vengeance
against the entire family members. It is further submitted that the
complainant - Valmiki K. Dombale was also medically examined and
the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. Thus, despite the
exaggerated allegations made in the F.I.R., only simple injuries have
been recorded by the medical officer. The Applicants are not having
any criminal antecedents and are ready to abide by any conditions
that may be imposed of by this Court. The Applicants have complied
conditions imposed by this Court while granting interim protection
vide order dated 15/05/2026. Hence, the Applicants may be
protected by confirming the interim order.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
30-ABA-2492-2025 (CR).DOC
5. As against this, the learned APP strongly opposes the bail
application on the ground that there are serious allegations against
the Applicants of kidnapping the complainant with an intention to
cause grievous hurt. It is submitted that the Applicants, in fact,
assaulted the complainant by means of dangerous weapons. The
assault is serious in nature and is punishable with life imprisonment.
Though there is a counter F.I.R., taking into consideration, the nature
of the allegations in the present F.I.R. the custodial interrogation of
the Applicants is necessary. This is not a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail and the application may be rejected.
6. I have gone through the investigations papers made
available by the learned APP. The F.I.R. shows that there is a delay of
about 17 days in lodging the F.I.R. In respect of the incident dated
21/03/2024, the F.I.R. came to be lodged on 07/04/2024. The injury
certificate shows that the complainant - Valmik has sustained only
simple injuries. Thus, prima facie, there appears to be no explanation
by the complainant for delay in lodging the F.I.R. after the incident.
The submissions that the present F.I.R. is an outcome of a
counterblast to the earlier F.I.R. lodged by Accused No.9 – Sakshi
appears to be probable. Be that as it may, these are observations are
prima facie in nature. Further, taking into consideration that this
Court has already protected the Applicants vide order dated
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4
30-ABA-2492-2025 (CR).DOC
15/05/2026, there are no allegations that the Applicants have
violated any of the conditions.
The investigation papers also does not contain the statement
of the Chandabai Maruti Goykar, who is stated to be a witness to the
incident of kidnapping and assault. The investigation papers also
shows that the recoveries were effected while the Applicants were
attending the police station pursuant to the interim protection
granted by this Court. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
i. The application is allowed.
ii. The interim protection granted vide order dated
15/5/2026, is hereby confirmed.
iii. The Applicants shall attend the concerned police station as
and when called by the investigating officer.
iv. The Applicants shall submit their Aadhar Card and PAN
Card copy to the Investigating Officer and detailed
addresses and phone numbers of themselves and two of
the near relatives.
7. In view of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the
application is allowed and disposed of.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…