Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

GITA VAIBHAV SABLE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

Anticipatory bail is granted to the applicants with conditions, as no pre‑meditation is evident and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

Summary

The applicants, a police constable and a driver, were charged with offences arising from a road‑side quarrel on 11 April 2026 that resulted in injuries to the complainant. They filed an anticipatory bail application, arguing that the incident was spontaneous, there was no pre‑meditation, the investigation was nearly complete, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State opposed, highlighting the seriousness of the injuries, the delay in filing the complaint, and questioning the medical certificate. The Court noted the lack of criminal antecedents, the applicants' willingness to cooperate, and the fact that the investigation was almost concluded, and therefore found no need for arrest. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions regarding attendance at the police station, non‑tampering with evidence, and restriction from the informant’s village.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants.
  • Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the present facts.
  • Whether the delay in filing the complaint and the nature of the medical certificate affect bail eligibility.
  • Whether the alleged offences are of a pre‑meditated nature warranting arrest.

Legislation cited

  • BNS — s. 115(2), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 324(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • custodial interrogation
  • pre‑meditation
  • delay in complaint
  • medical certificate
  • bail conditions
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:21941
             Dilwale                                     1                 959-ABA-788-26.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        959 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 788 OF 2026

                                 Gita Vaibhav Sable And Another
                                             VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                                 ...
             Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shermale K. N.
             APP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. J. Patil
             Advocate for Intervenor : Mr. Kanishk Waghwase
                                                 ...

                                     CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                     DATE          : 19.05.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.        Mr. Kanishk Waghwase, learned counsel appearing for the

             complainant/prosecutrix, is permitted to intervene.

             2.        Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP for the

             State and the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor.

             3.        Learned counsel Mr. Shermale submits that the incident allegedly

             occurred on 11.04.2026 at about 7.30 p.m. at Padalane-Ambad Road. He

             submits that even after the incident, efforts were made to settle and

             mediate the dispute; however, subsequently, the complaint came to be

             lodged after four days and, therefore, there is delay in filing the

             complaint. He further submits that the medical certificate placed on

             record was not issued by a Government Hospital. Learned counsel

             submits that applicant No.1 is serving as a Police Constable and applicant
Dilwale                                      2                 959-ABA-788-26.odt


No.2 is working as a driver in MSRTC. According to him, the incident

occurred on account of a quarrel arising out of overtaking by a four-

wheeler vehicle of the informant, while the applicants were travelling on

motorcycles. He submits that there was no premeditation and the

incident occurred suddenly. He further submits that the investigation is

almost completed and custodial interrogation of the applicants is not

necessary.

4.        Per contra, the learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the

intervenor strongly opposed the application. The learned APP invited my

attention to the medical report and pointed out that the injured sustained

four injuries, out of which two injuries are grievous and two are simple in

nature. It is further submitted that the injuries were caused by hard and

blunt objects.

5.        Considering the submissions advanced and the fact that the

investigation is almost completed, I am of the view that custodial

interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. It prima facie appears

that the incident occurred in spur of moment which was not pre-

meditated and intentional. I am of the opinion that no arrest is necessary

as the applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation and to

comply with the conditions imposed by this Court for securing their

attendance before the Investigating Agency. The applicants do not appear

to have criminal antecedents. By granting protection from arrest, the

liberty of the applicants can be upheld without curtailing the power of
Dilwale                                       3                  959-ABA-788-26.odt


investigation of Police. Not to mention that it is always open for the

informant or prosecution to approach this Court in case of breach of

condition imposed by this Court while granting protection. Hence, the

following order :

                                     ORDER

(i)       The application is allowed. In the event of arrest of applicants,

namely, Geeta w/o Vaibhav Sabale and Vaibhav s/o Eknath Sabale in

connection with Crime No.0225 of 2026 registered with Police Station

Akole Dist. Ahilyanagar punishable under Sections            115(2), 118(2),

324(2), 189(2) 190 191(2), 352 and 351(3) of BNS, be released on bail

on executing P.R. Bond and Surety Bond of Rs.15,000/- each.

(ii)      The applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station on every

Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 02.00 p.m. till the filing of chargesheet.

(iii)     The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in

any manner whatsoever.

(iv)      The applicants shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of the

village where the informant resides till the filing of the chargesheet.

(v)       The applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency.



                                            [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                      JUDGE


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.