RAJU KERUBA SHINDE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41566




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     918 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 735 OF 2026
                                           WITH
                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2272 OF 2026

           1. Raju Keruba Shinde
           2. Aditya Sanju Shinde
           3. Sangita Raju Shinde
           4. Rutuja Raju Shinde
           5. Mina Sanjay Shinde
           6. Sanjay Keruba Shinde                                 … APPLICANTS

                 VERSUS

           The State of Maharashtra                                … RESPONDENT
                                                  ...
           Mr. Milind Madhu Joshi, Advocate for Applicants
           Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. A. A. Shaikh h/f Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for the informant

                                                      CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                      DATED    : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 220/2026,

           registered with Bidkin Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for

           the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 191(2),

           191(3), 190, 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.


           2.    The First Information Report indicates that an incident had occurred on

           27.03.2026, in which the present applicants alleged to have assaulted the



           918 ABA 735.2026.odt                                                    1 of 4
witness/victim. The allegation is that the applicants assaulted him with kicks

and fist blows and that someone assaulted him from behind with an iron rod.

In the said incident, the victim sustained grievous injuries.


3.    Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that, in the present case,

there are counter-reports in respect of the same incident and, as such, the

possibility of someone else causing the injuries to the victim cannot be ruled

out. It is his submission that, in the absence of any overt act being attributed

to the applicants, their liberty deserves to be protected.


4.    Learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for the informant

opposed the grant of protection to the applicants. It is their submission, by

referring to the injury certificate on record, that the victim sustained grievous

injuries in the said incident.


5.    Learned Advocate for the informant submits that, after interim relief

was granted to some of the applicants, they threatened the informant and also

lodged a report invoking the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court cannot prohibit any

person from lodging a report if any offence is committed against him. As far

as the allegation with regard to the threatening at the hands of some of the

applicants is concerned, for want of any particulars and material to



918 ABA 735.2026.odt                                                       2 of 4
substantiate the same, this Court finds no reason not to protect the liberty of

the applicants.


6.    A perusal of the First Information Report as well as the statements

recorded during the course of investigation does not indicate as to who is the

author of the said injury. There is no dispute about the fact that there are

counter-reports in respect of the same incident and, as such, the possibility of

the injury being caused by someone other than the present applicants cannot

be ruled out. In the absence of any specific overt act attributed to the

applicants, merely for the reason that grievous injuries were caused to the

victim, the protection of the liberty of the applicants cannot be denied. There

are no criminal antecedents against the applicants. Hence, the order.

                                    ORDER

             (i)   Application of applicant Nos.3. Sangita Raju Shinde,
             4. Rutuja Raju Shinde and 5. Mina Sanjay Shinde is allowed in
             terms of interim order dated 05.05.2026.

             (ii) In the event of arrest of applicant Nos. 1. Raju Keruba
             Shinde and 2. Aditya Sanju Shinde, in connection with Crime
             No. 220/2026, registered with Bidkin Police Station, District
             Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under
             Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190,
             352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, they shall be
             released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.50,000/-
             (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the
             like amount.

             (iii) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or
             indirectly.

918 ABA 735.2026.odt                                                      3 of 4
            (iv) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any
            manner whatsoever.

            (v) They are further directed to cooperate the investigating
            agency for further investigation.

            (vi) They shall attend the concerned Police Station and
            report to the Investigating Officer on 22.09.2026 and
            28.09.2026 between 11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and as and
            when called by the Investigating Officer on written intimation.

7.    Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.

8.    Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.



                                                         ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




918 ABA 735.2026.odt                                                          4 of 4