Bombay High Court

RAJENDRA MAHADU GAVALI ALIAS SATWAJI VELHANEKARversusTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, subject to the conditions of the interim order, except clause (ii).

Summary

The applicant, Rajendra Mahadu Gavali, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (Crime No. 0177/2025) alleging offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including assault and causing grievous hurt. The FIR alleged that the applicant and co‑accused assaulted an informant on 16‑03‑2025, resulting in serious injuries. The applicant’s counsel argued that the FIR does not specifically allege that the applicant used a weapon or caused the grievous injuries, and that he has no prior criminal record, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. The State’s counsel contended that the applicant participated in the assault and therefore bears responsibility for the injuries. The Court examined the FIR, found no direct attribution of the injuries to the applicant, noted the absence of any weapon, and observed that the applicant’s liberty had already been protected by an earlier order dated 25‑06‑2025. Consequently, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to the conditions of the interim order, except clause (ii).

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether the FIR sufficiently links the applicant to the assault and the grievous injuries inflicted on the informant.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 109, 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Indian Penal Code
assault
grievous hurt
custodial interrogation
liberty

Judgment

                                 -1-
                                                       aba981.25.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

      951 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 981 OF 2025

Rajendra Mahadu Gavali
Alias Satwaji Velhanekar                        ….Applicant

VERSUS

The Superintendent of Police
& another                                       …..Respondents

Mr. K. P. Rathod, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State.

                               CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                               DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.     Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

0177/2025 registered with Dhule Taluka Police Station, District

Dhule for offences punishable under Sections 109, 189(2), 190,

191(2), 118(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita.



2.    First Information Report indicates that the alleged incident had

occurred on 16.03.2025 in which present Applicant and co-accused

assaulted the informant. In the said assault, he sustained serious

injuries.
                                 -2-
                                                         aba981.25.odt

3.    Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that though the

Applicant has been named in the First Information Report, there is

no allegation against him that he assaulted informant with any

weapon or he is responsible for causing grievous injuries to him. It is

his submission that Applicant has no criminal history behind him.

According to him, having regard to the nature of allegations against

the Applicant, his custodial interrogation is not necessary.



4.    Learned APP opposed grant of protection to the Applicant by

referring to the First Information Report. It is his contention that in

the incident in question, the informant has sustained grievous

injuries an since the Applicant along with co-accused has caused the

said assault, he is responsible for the same.



5.    Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report does not

indicate that injuries caused to the informant can be attributed to

the Applicant.   He was not possessing any weapon.         As such, as

rightly argued that this is not a case of custodial interrogation of the

Applicant.    Liberty of the Applicant was protected by order dated

25.06.2025.    There is nothing on record to show that he has no
                                  -3-
                                                          aba981.25.odt

cooperated in the investigation or abused liberty.    Hence, application

is allowed in terms of the interim order except clause No. (ii) thereof.



                                                   ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…