Bombay High Court
MAYUR DINKAR NIKAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the alleged offences are serious, the applicant has prior bodily offence convictions, and credible eyewitness evidence contradicts his claim of alibi.
Summary
The applicant, Mayur Dinkar Nikam, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an alleged assault and threat against an informant on 15 March 2026. The prosecution alleged that Nikam, along with co‑accused, held the informant’s neck and threatened him with a scythe, asserting that the informant was cooperating with police. The applicant contended he was in Mumbai at the time and that the FIR was false, while the State argued he is a gang member with three prior bodily offence charges, including two under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, and is absconding. The court noted the seriousness of the alleged offences, the presence of eyewitnesses, and the applicant’s prior criminal record. Consequently, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, directing the trial court to decide the case on its merits without being influenced by the present order.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the seriousness of the alleged assault and threat.
- Whether prior offences and alleged absconding disqualify the applicant from anticipatory bail.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of being elsewhere at the time of the incident is credible in view of eyewitness testimony.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 110, 189(4), 191(3)
- Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 — s. 7
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- threat
- organized crime
- false FIR
- absconding
- serious offence
Judgment
938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC
skt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2669 OF 2026
Mayur Dinkar Nikam …Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar a/w. Mr. Sandeep Gupta, for the
Applicant.
Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar, learned counsel
appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Yadav, learned APP for the
State.
2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application, the Applicant is seeking
pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 148 of 2026 registered
with Panchawati Police Station, Nashik City for the offences
punishable under Sections 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
1951, Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and
Sections 191(3), 189(4) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
Page 1 of 5
24th September, 2026
938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC
skt
3. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No. 2 of the
order dated 25th August 2026 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Bail Application No. 1612 of
2026. The said paragraph No.2 reads as under :-
“2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application
are as under:
On 15.03.2026 at about 9.30 to 10.00 p.m.
informant Nilesh Ranmale alongwith his friends Vicky
Bhadange, Rahul Ranmale, Sanket Jondhale and Ravi
Patil were chitchatting near Hanuman mandir. All of a
sudden, 3-4 motorcycles came and stopped near the
informant. Harshad Patankar and Mayur Nikam get down
from the motorcycle and tightly hold informant's neck.
Shravan Pagare pushed the informant and told Harshad
that informant is giving their intimation to police and
they should not let informant go alive. After that,
Harshad Patankar and Rupesh Tajne came towards
informant armed with scythe in their hands. Other 4 to 5
unknown persons were also with them. Harshad Patankar
said that he will kill informant and Harshad and Rupesh
Page 2 of 5
24th September, 2026
938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC
skt
started moving towards informant. However, informant
forcefully pushed and rescued his neck from Harshad and
ran away from the spot. Due to fear of scythe in the
hands of Harshad and Rupesh, informant's friends who
were present on the spot have not came forward to
rescue informant.”
4. Thus, as per prosecution case, co-accused Harshad Patankar
and the present Applicant came on a motorcycle where the First
Informant and his friends were chitchatting. The present Applicant
tightly hold the First Informant’s neck and started giving threats as
according to the Applicant and other co-accused, the First
Informant and his friends were informing the police about the
activities of the Applicant and the co-accused and therefore the
First Informant and his friends were assaulted.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant that the Applicant is not involved in the crime. He states
that in fact when the incident took place, the Applicant was in
Mumabi and false F.I.R. is filed.
Page 3 of 5
24th September, 2026
938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC
skt
6. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP submits that the
Applicant is member of a gang. There are three offences registered
against the Applicant out of which two offences were registered in
the year 2025 and one in the year 2026. All offences are bodily
offences. She points out the observations made in the order dated
25th August 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
that two crimes under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act, 1999 are registered against the Applicant and that the Accused
is absconding. She, therefore, submits that the Applicant is not
entitled to get the anticipatory bail.
7. Perusal of record shows that the offence is very serious
where the Applicant along with co-accused assaulted the First
Informant and his friends and threatened them that they would kill
them as the First Informant and his friends were informing to the
police about the activities of the Applicant and the co-accused.
Thus, the offence is very serious.
8. Although, it is the contention of learned counsel for the
Applicant that the Applicant was in Mumbai when the incident
took place, there are eye-witnesses to the incident.
Page 4 of 5
24th September, 2026
938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC
skt
9. There are three offences registered against the Applicant,
two of which are of the year 2025 and one is of the year 2026.
Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.
10. The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.
11. The observations in this order are made for considering this
Anticipatory Bail Application. The learned Trial Court shall not be
influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove and shall
decide the case on its own merits.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 5 of 5
24th September, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.