Bombay High Court

KIRAN RAMDAS BORHADEversusVIVEK MADHAV ALIAS KADUBA GORE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of any material indicating that Applicant 1 caused grievous injury and with the weapon already recovered, anticipatory bail should be granted.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Vivek Madhav alias Kaduba Gore (Applicant 1) and Samadhan Dagduba Gore (Applicant 2) in connection with FIR No.30/2026 alleging assault under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Applicant 2 withdrew his application, leading to its dismissal, while Applicant 1 feared arrest despite the FIR indicating no grievous injury caused by him. The State argued that custodial interrogation was necessary for weapon recovery, but the court noted that the weapon had already been recovered and no material linked Applicant 1 to any serious injury. The court found no reason to deny bail and confirmed the interim anticipatory bail relief dated 17.06.2026. Consequently, the application of Applicant 1 was allowed and the pending application, if any, was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Applicant 1 despite allegations of assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the prosecution’s need for custodial interrogation justifies denial of bail.
Effect of the withdrawal of Applicant 2’s anticipatory bail application.

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
assault
false implication
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
weapon recovery
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41395
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…