Bombay High Court

SUDHAKAR ALIAS SUDAM BABURAO PADULE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

Bail is granted to the applicants subject to a personal bond and specific conditions.

Summary

The applicants, members of a rival political group, were arrested for assaulting an informant during a clash, causing grievous injuries. They were charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Arms Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The prosecution argued that the seriousness of the offences and the possibility of further violence warranted continued detention, noting that some weapons were still unrecovered and some co‑accused were absconding. The defence contended that the investigation was complete, a charge‑sheet had been filed, recoveries had been made, and the injured victims had been discharged, making further custody unnecessary. The court, after reviewing the FIR, medical reports and the fact that the victims were no longer in danger, held that continued detention was not justified and granted bail with a personal bond and strict conditions restricting the applicants’ movement and conduct. The order emphasized that the observations were prima facie and the trial court must decide the case on its merits.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting bail to the accused despite the seriousness of the offences and pending recovery of weapons.
Whether the discharge of the injured victims and completion of the charge‑sheet justify release on bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 118(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 351(2), 352
Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 3, 7

Subjects

bail
political rivalry
assault
grievous injury
arms possession
criminal procedure
personal bond

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:23705
1 of 5 959-BA.1024.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

959 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1024 OF 2026

1. Sudhakar @ Sudam Baburao Padule,

2. Kamalesh Sopan Borwade,

3. Pradip Sandipan Sonawane,

4. Santosh Vitthalrao Patil (Gund). … Applicants
Versus

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
...
Mr. Mayur Vasant Salunke, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent-State.
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026

P.C.:-

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Mayur Vasant Salunke for the

Applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. K. Naik for

the respondent–State.

2. By the present application, the Applicants seek their release

on bail in connection with Crime No.83 of 2026 dated 26.03.2026,

registered with Pimpalner Police Station, District Beed, for the offences

punishable under Sections 109, 118(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3),

324(4), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read

with Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 7 of the
2 of 5 959-BA.1024.2026

Criminal Law Amendment Act.

3. The brief story of prosecution is that, the Informant

demanded information pertaining to the group gram panchayat

through RTI and out of prevailing enmity between two rival political

groups in the village, a tussle took place between the Informant and

the present Applicants, whereby the Informant sustained fracture injury

on his leg, hand, back and head with the help of iron rod and wooden

stick.

4. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the Applicants submits that

the incident arose out of a clash between two rival groups. He submits

that the investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed.

The custodial presence of the Applicants is no longer necessary.

Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that recoveries have

already been effected from the present Applicants. He, therefore, prays

for allowing the present bail application.

5. Learned APP strongly opposed the application by contending

that serious allegations have been levelled against the Applicants. He

submits that cross cases have been registered against both groups.

According to him, if the Applicants are released on bail, there is every

possibility of their indulging in similar activities, thereby creating a law

and order problem. He further submits that certain weapons are yet to

be recovered. Learned APP submits that weapons are yet to be
3 of 5 959-BA.1024.2026

recovered from the absconding accused persons and that some of the

accused are still absconding. He further relied upon the medical

certificates and submitted that the injured persons sustained grievous

injuries.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the respective parties. I have perused both the FIRs as well

as the investigation papers made available for my consideration. I have

also gone through the medical certificates. The injuries suffered by the

injured persons include fractures and are, therefore, grievous in nature.

However, upon a specific query put to the learned APP as to whether

the injured persons are still undergoing treatment, he submitted that

they have been discharged from the hospital. Learned counsel for the

Applicants also confirms that all the injured persons have been

discharged and are presently out of danger.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, particularly the fact that

recoveries have already been effected from the present Applicants,

charge-sheet has been filed and that they have been in custody since

01.04.2026, I am of the view that their further detention is not

warranted. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application on the

following conditions:-

ORDER

I. The application is allowed.
4 of 5 959-BA.1024.2026

II. Applicants – Sudhakar @ Sudam Baburao Padule,

Kamalesh Sopan Borwade, Pradip Sandipan Sonawane

and Santosh Vitthalrao Patil (Gund) be released on bail

in connection with Crime No.83 of 2026 dated

26.03.2026, registered with Pimpalner Police Station,

District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections

109, 118(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4),

351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

read with Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and

Sections 3 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,

on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like

amount, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The Applicants shall not enter village of Pimpalner,

District Beed, till conclusion of the trial, except for

attending the proceedings before the concerned

Court.

(b) The Applicants shall attend each and every date

fixed by the learned Trial Court, except when

specifically exempted by the learned Trial Court, till

culmination of the trial.

any inducement, threat or promise to any

prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the

prosecution evidence.

(d) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid

conditions, it shall be open for the prosecution or

the complainant to approach this Court for

cancellation of bail, notwithstanding the fact that

this Court has granted bail to the Applicants.

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.

IV. Bail before the Trial Court.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…