Bombay High Court

VIVEK MADHAV ALIAS KADUBA GORE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court confirmed anticipatory bail for Applicant 1, finding no material indicating grievous injury and noting that the weapon had already been recovered.

Summary

Vivek Madhav alias Kaduba Gore (Applicant 1) filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest under FIR CR No.30/2026 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR alleged assault with iron rods and wooden sticks but no evidence of grievous injury by Applicant 1. The State opposed, arguing a specific allegation of assault on a person named Avinash and the need for custodial interrogation to recover the weapon. The court noted that the weapon had already been recovered and there was no material linking Applicant 1 to any grievous injury, also highlighting the possibility of false or over‑implication. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim anticipatory bail relief dated 17.06.2026 for Applicant 1, while the application of Applicant 2 (Samadhan Dagduba Gore) was dismissed as withdrawn.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Applicant 1 in view of the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the prosecution has sufficient material to justify denial of bail, including the need for custodial interrogation.
Whether the possibility of false or over‑implication warrants granting bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352(3)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
assault
weapon recovery
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
interim relief

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41394
920-ABA-988-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

920 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 988 OF 2026

Vivek Madhav Alias Kaduba Gore And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Ms. A. P. Patil h/f Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicants
Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondents

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2486 OF 2026
IN ABA/988/2026

Kiran Ramdas Borhade
VERSUS
Vivek Madhav Alias Kaduba Gore And Others

Mr. A. S. Avhad h/f Adv. A. S. Chaudhari, Advocate for Applicant

CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE :SEPTEMBER 08, 2026

P. C. :

1. After hearing learned Counsels for both sides and when this

Court has shown its disinclination to grant any relief to Applicant No. 2 –

Samadhan Dagduba Gore, learned Counsel for Applicants, on instructions,

seeks withdrawal of application qua this Applicant.

2. Application to the extent of Applicant No. 2 stands dismissed as

withdrawn.

3. Applicant No.1 apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.

30/2026 registered with Police Station Tembhurni, District Jalna for the

Page 1 of 3
920-ABA-988-2026.odt

offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 189(4),

190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3) and 352(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

4. First information report indicates that an incident had occurred

on 15.03.2026 in which present Applicant as well as co-accused caused

assault on Informant as well as witnesses with iron rod and wooden sticks.

As far as present Applicant No. 1 is concerned, there is no evidence in order

to show any grievous injury being sustained by the Informant or witnesses

at his hand.

5. Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that there are numbers

of assailants mentioned in the FIR and having regard to the said fact, the

possibility of false/over implication is not ruled out.

6. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant opposed

application. It is their submission that there is specific allegation against

Applicant No.1 of causing assault on Avinash i.e. person who intervened into

the said quarrel. It is the contention of learned APP that for the purpose of

recovery of the weapon, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is

necessary.

7. Prima facie perusal of the record and more particularly, order

passed by the Sessions Court indicates that the recovery of the weapon has

Page 2 of 3
920-ABA-988-2026.odt

already been done. In so far as Applicant No.1 is concerned, there is no

material collected during the course of investigation indicating attribution of

any grievous injury being caused by Applicant. In the facts of the case, this

Court finds no reason not to confirm the interim relief. Hence, Application

qua Applicant No. 1 is allowed by confirming interim relief dated

17.06.2026.

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

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani

Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…