Bombay High Court
ACHIT ALIAS ACHYUTRAO BHAGWANRAO RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail, finding no necessity for custodial interrogation at the present stage of investigation.
Summary
The applicant, Achit Rathod, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in connection with FIR No. 0058/2026, which alleges assault and attempted murder under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The incident dated 29 January 2026 involved a dispute over land, with the applicant’s wife filing a first report claiming the applicant was the victim and that he sustained injuries. The applicant cooperated with the investigation, and the alleged weapon was seized. The State opposed bail, citing the injuries to the informant and alleging the applicant’s involvement in a serious crime. The court noted the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history, the existence of a counter‑report, and the stage of investigation, concluding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and granting anticipatory bail, except for clause ‘A’.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite allegations of assault and attempted murder under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115-2, 118-1, 118-2, 189-2, 190, 191-2, 191-3, 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- assault
- weapon seizure
- investigation
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23691
929-ABA-430-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 430 OF 2026
Achit Alias Achyutrao Bhagwanrao Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
...
Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. G. Joshi, APP for Respondents
...
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE : JUNE 17, 2026
PC :
1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.
0058/2026 registered with Police Station Ambad, Dist. Jalna for the
offences punishable under Sections 115-2, 118-1, 118-2, 189-2, 190, 191-2,
191-3, 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. First information report lodged by Vijaykumar indicates that an
incident has occurred on 29.01.2026 at about 17.30 hours in which he was
abused and assaulted by present Applicant and co-accused over the issue
with regard to dispute of land. The allegation is that present Applicant used
sickle to cause serious injury to the Applicant whereas co-accused assaulted
him with iron rod.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that in fact in
respect of said incident, wife of Applicant has lodged report to concerned
Page 1 of 3
929-ABA-430-2026.odt
police station indicating that the Informant herein and other accused
persons assaulted Applicant and others. It is his submission that present
report is by way of counterblast. He further states that Applicant has no
criminal history behind him. According to him, in any case, since the
weapon allegedly used in crime has already been seized as the Applicant has
cooperated in investigation, application be allowed.
4. Learned APP opposed the application by citing injuries to
Informant, which are attributable to the present Applicant. It is his
submission that considering the allegations in FIR and injury certificate, the
involvement of Applicant in serious crime of attempting to commit murder is
made out. He, therefore, seeks rejection of Application.
5. Perusal of the record shows that wife of Applicant had lodged
report in respect of incident occurred on 29.01.2026, which is first in time.
Moreover, there is document on record to show that Applicant had sustained
injuries in said incident. Apart from the fact that there are disputes between
parties and possibility of false implication exists, admittedly the alleged
weapon used by Applicant in this crime has been seized by the investigating
agency. Moreover, Applicant has cooperated in investigation as per
directions issued by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2026. Considering the
stage of investigation, this Court finds no reason to accept that any custodial
interrogation of the Applicant would be necessary.
Page 2 of 3
929-ABA-430-2026.odt
6. As a result of above discussion, Application deserves to be
allowed and the same is accordingly allowed in terms of interim order dated
17.03.2026 except clause no. ‘A’.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…