Bombay High Court
ROHIT RUPCHAND KAMBLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The court held that the case is not a fit one for the grant of pre‑arrest protection and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Summary
Rohit Rupchand Kamble applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, fearing arrest in a case (Crime No. 531 of 2026) alleging assault with a tile causing grievous injuries, punishable under Sections 118(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution argued that the assault was directed at the victim’s forehead, indicating intent to cause death, and highlighted the victim’s five‑day hospitalization, the applicant’s two prior criminal antecedents, and alleged suppression of a past offence. The applicant contended that the matter was essentially a civil dispute, that the tile and statements were already recovered, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court examined the FIR, the seriousness of the injuries, the applicant’s criminal record, and the alleged suppression, concluding that the circumstances did not warrant pre‑arrest protection. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS given the seriousness of the alleged assault and injuries
- Whether the presence of prior criminal antecedents and alleged suppression of a past offence preclude the grant of pre‑arrest bail
- Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the present facts
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 118(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 482
- grievous hurt
- assault
- criminal antecedents
- suppression of antecedent
- civil dispute
- custodial interrogation
Judgment
1
903-ABA-488-2026 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 488 OF 2026
Rohit Rupchand Kamble …...Applicant
VERSUS.
The State of Maharashtra And Ors. …...Respondents
-----
Ms. Manisha S. Dalave (Through VC), for the Applicant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 - State.
-------
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.08.31
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
10:45:19
+0530
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard, Ms. Manisha S. Dalave, learned Advocate for the
Applicant and Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 –
State.
2. By this Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Applicant seeks pre-arrest
bail, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 531 of 2026 registered at
Tembhurni Police Station, Solapur Rural, for offences punishable under
Sections 118(2), 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(for short, “BNS”).
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
903-ABA-488-2026 (CR).DOC
3. The prosecution alleges that on 29 th July, 2026, at about 4:45
p.m., the Applicant was digging the land to fix a pole. When the Informant
questioned the Applicant about digging on the property, which the
Informant claims belongs to his family, the Applicant struck the Informant
on the forehead with a tile, causing grievous injuries.
4. Ms. Manisha Dalave, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits
that the subject matter Crime No. 531 of 2026 is a civil dispute between
the Applicant, the Informant and his family members. She submits that the
tile used in the crime has been recovered, the statement of the
Informant/witnesses has been recorded, and the spot panchanama has
been prepared. She therefore submits that the custodial interrogation of
the Applicant is not required.
5. Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P., submits that the nature of the
assault and the weapon used by the Applicant, namely, a tile, coupled with
the fact that the assault was directed at the forehead of the Informant, are
sufficient to indicate the Applicant's intention to cause the death of the
Informant. He submits that in view of the injuries sustained by the
Informant as a result of the assault, the Informant was admitted to the
Hospital for nearly five days. By referring to the injury certificate of the
Informant, he submits that the Informant has sustained grievous injuries.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
903-ABA-488-2026 (CR).DOC
He further submits that the Applicant is absconding. He submits that
custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required for investigation.
6. Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, by
referring to the order dated 12 th August, 2026 passed by the Sessions
Court, submits that the Applicant, while filing Criminal Bail Application
No. 653 of 2026, willfully suppressed the fact of one of his criminal
antecedents.
7. Perused records with the assistance of the learned Advocates
appearing for the parties.
8. Upon perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie, the assault on the
Informant was with a tile to the vital part, i.e. the forehead, indicating that
the Applicant had knowledge of, or was fully aware that the assault would
result in the death of the Informant. Due to the said assault, the Informant
sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized for five (5) days.
9. The records placed on the file indicate that the Applicant has two
criminal antecedents.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts, the nature and gravity of the
allegations, the injuries caused to the Informant, the criminal antecedents
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4
903-ABA-488-2026 (CR).DOC
of the Applicant and the allegation of suppression of a criminal antecedent
before the learned Sessions Court, I am of the view that this is not a fit case
for the grant of pre-arrest protection.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, Anticipatory Bail
Application No.488 of 2026 is rejected.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…