LAXMAN SOMNATH HINGMIREversusBALAJI MARUTI RAVIKAR ALIAS TENGETOL

2026:BHC-AUG:24482
                                                                             40-BA-753-26.odt
                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            40 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 753 OF 2026

                             1. Balaji Maruti Ravikar alias Tengetol
                             2. Dnyaneshwar Maruti Ravikar @ Tengetol
                                            VERSUS
                                   The State Of Maharashtra

                                       WITH
                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1829 OF 2026 IN BA/753/2026

                                  Laxman Somnath Hingmire
                                            VERSUS
                              Balaji Maruti Ravikar Alias Tengetol

                                                ......
          Mr. V.P. Golewar, Advocate for Applicant
          Mr. S.D. Ghayal, Addl. P.P. for Respondent-State
          Mr. S.C. Swami, Advocate for the Informant
                                                ......

                                          CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                          DATE       : 22 JUNE, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard learned counsel Mr. V.P. Golewar for the applicants and

          learned Add. P.P. Mr. S.D. Ghayal for respondent No.1-State.


          2.     Criminal Application No. 1829 of 2026 is filed by the informant

          seeking permission to assist APP. For the reasons mentioned in the

          application, the applicant is permitted to assist APP. The application is

          accordingly disposed of.


          3.     By the present application, the applicants seek their release on bail in

          connection with Crime No.737 of 2025 registered with Udgir Rural Police
                                                                   40-BA-753-26.odt
                                      2

Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Section 109,

308(4), 308 (5), 190, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 1923.


3.     Learned counsel Mr. V.P. Golewar for the applicants submits that the

present FIR is registered only to give counter blast to the complaint filed by

applicant No.2 vide FIR No.687 of 2025. He submits that there is a delay in

lodging report, which shows that the report has been lodged as an

afterthought. He submits that incident was occurred because of the earlier

dispute between the parties. He further submits that the investigation is

complete and charge-sheet is already filed. He submits that the accused

were arrested on 25.12.2025 and behind the bars for considerable time.

Therefore, he prays to allow the application.


5.     Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.D. Ghayal and

learned counsel for the informant strongly oppose the application. It is

submitted that the applicants, armed with a deadly weapon, assaulted the

informant's father and caused grievous injuries on vital parts of the body.

Inviting my attention to the injury certificate and other material collected

during investigation, they submit that specific overt acts have been

attributed to the applicants. Considering the seriousness of the offence and

the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, it is submitted that no case

for grant of bail is made out. They further submit that, if released on bail,

the applicants may influence the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial.
                                                                   40-BA-753-26.odt
                                      3

6.     I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the parties. I have also perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the material

placed on record.


7.     A perusal of the FIR indicates that the allegation against the present

applicants is that they assaulted the informant's father by means of a katti

and caused injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Though the

prosecution relies upon the injury certificate and the recovery effected at the

instance of the applicants, it is not disputed that the injured has been

discharged from the hospital and is no longer undergoing indoor treatment.


8.     The record further indicates that the applicants are in custody since

December 2025. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has

already been filed. Thus, the presence of the applicants is no longer required

for the purpose of investigation. The articles alleged to have been used in

the commission of the offence have already been recovered and nothing

further remains to be recovered or discovered at the instance of the

applicants. In the circumstances, further custodial detention of the

applicants does not appear to be necessary.


9.     Having regard to the nature of allegations, the completion of

investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration

already undergone by the applicants and the fact that the injured has been

discharged from the hospital, I am of the view that the applicants have made

out a case for grant of bail. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution
                                                                   40-BA-753-26.odt
                                          4

can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. Hence,

the following order:

                                      ORDER

I.      The application is allowed.


II.     Applicants, namely, (1) Balaji Maruti Ravikar alias Tengetol and (2)

Dnyaneshwar Maruti Ravikar alias Tengetol, be released on bail in

connection with Crime No.737 of 2025 registered with Udgir Rural Police

Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 109,

308(4), 308(5), 190 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on

executing a P.R.Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each,

with one solvent surety in the like amount each, subject to the following

conditions:



[a]     The applicants shall not enter Village Shambu Umerga, Taluka Udgir,
District Latur, till conclusion of the trial,


(b)     The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the Trial
Court on every effective date unless specifically exempted by the Trial Court.


(c)     The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.


(d)     In the event of breach of the condition, it will be open for the
prosecution or the complainant to approach the concerned Court for
cancellation of bail.
                                                                   40-BA-753-26.odt
                                        5

III.       Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie

in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present bail application.

The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in

this order while deciding the case on its own merits.




                                             [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                       JUDGE
S P Rane