GOVIND HIRALAL GADHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:40205
                                                                        954ba1112-26

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             954 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1112 OF 2026

            Govind s/o Hiralal Gadhe
            R/o Wadwali Tq. Paithan
            District Aurangabad                               … Applicant
            VERSUS
            The State Of Maharashtra
            Through Police Inspector,
            Paithan Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad          … Respondent
                                                ...
            Mr. Wakale Vijay Shivaji a/w S. B. Sardar, Advocates for the Applicant
            Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent-State


                                    CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                      Dated : 2nd September, 2026
            PER COURT :-


            1.       Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for

            the State.


            2.       By the present application, the applicant is seeking regular on

            bail in connection with Crime No. 98/2024, registered with Paithan

            Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences

            punishable under Sections 307, 326, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian

            Penal Code and Section 4 r/w 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The

            present applicant came to be arrested on 26.04.2025 and since then, he

            is in custody.


            3.       The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant Shri

            Laxman Gadhe lodged the First Information Report on 19.03.2024

            alleging that his ancestral land bearing Block No.11 at Village Wadwali,


                                                                               1 of 6
                                                             954ba1112-26


Ta. Paithan was partitioned between the three bothers including

himself, brothers Hiralal Gadhe and Bhimrao Gadhe.            There was

dispute between them over that land and the same was pending before

the Collector, wherein the order of status quo was granted. It is alleged

that on 18.03.2024, at about 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.,         when the

complainant and his children were at home, they heard the sound of

tractor in the disputed land and therefore, they rushed to the land and

saw that the present applicant, along-with the other co-accused who

are his family members, were plowing the land with the tractor. The

complainant gave understanding to the accused persons not to plow

the land as the dispute is still pending before the Collector and there is

already an order of status quo granted.     It is alleged that co-accused

no.1   abused him and by threatening him to kill, assaulted the

complainant with sickle on his head. When the son- Umesh of

complainant tried to intervene, he was also assaulted by accused no.1

with sickle on his head, and right side ribs. At that time, the present

applicant and other co accused nos. 3 and 4 took sticks which were

lying nearby and by uttering words “kill them” assaulted the

complainant on neck and jaw and his son Umesh on ribs and knee.

When the tractor driver by name Jalindar Pathade came to the rescue,

he was also assaulted by co-accused no.1 by sickle on his left hand and

he too sustained injury. The complainant and his son along-with driver

of the tractor sustained bleeding injuries. The accused persons

including the applicant alleged to have left from the spot. The son

Umesh, informed the incident to his uncle Bhimrao who then came at

                                                                     2 of 6
                                                              954ba1112-26


the spot and took the injured persons to the hospital and from there,

the present FIR came to be registered.


4.        The learned counsel for the applicant submits that even by

going through the contents of the FIR, the applicant is not alleged to

have possessed or used deadly weapon sickle and the specific allegation

of use of sickle is against the accused Balaji. The applicant is attributed

only a general and omnibus role of assault with the wooden stick,

identical to the role attributed to co-accused Rajesh and Datta who

have already been released on bail. It is further submitted that medical

papers also do not disclose that the injury is caused by the hard and

blunt object corresponding to the alleged assault by stick. The injuries

described   in the   certificate   are attributed to the hard and sharp

weapon.     Thus, the learned Advocate for the applicant prays for

releasing the applicant on bail, mainly on the ground of parity with the

co-accused Rajesh and Datta.


5.        The learned APP opposes the application. It is submitted that

the applicant is specifically named in the FIR as well as in the statement

of the injured witness Umesh. He submits that the the occurrence was

a consorted attack arising out of the land dispute and that the applicant

not only participated in the assault, but also shared the exhortation to

kill.   One of the injures sustained by Umesh is certified as grievous

injury. According to the prosecution, the applicant's liability has to be

considered with the aid of section 34 of IPC and seriousness of

accusation dis-entitles him to be released on bail.

                                                                     3 of 6
                                                               954ba1112-26


6.       I have considered the rival submissions and have also

examined the material referred during the hearing of the application. I

have also perused the orders granting anticipatory bail to accused

Rajesh and the order of regular bail releasing accused Datta.      Though

the FIR prima facie discloses participation of the present applicant in

the alleged offence, and also attributes a specific role and injuries with

the help of stick, yet, at this stage of bail, this court is not expected to

conduct a meticulous evaluation of the evidence or record findings,

which may prejudice the trial. At the same time, the parity cannot be

applied merely because another co-accused has been released on bail.

What is required to be done by the Court is that the court must

compare the nature of accusation, specific role, the weapon attributed,

resulting injuries and other relevant circumstances of the accused

concerned.


7.       On such comparison, a prima facie distinction emerges

between accused Balaji and the present applicant. The sickle blows

are specifically attributed to accused Balaji. The present applicant is

alleged to have used wooden stick along-with co accused Rajesh and

Datta. The injury certificate of Laxman records a contused lacerated

wound on the right side of the forehead described as caused by hard

and sharp object.      The injured witness Umesh certifies to have

sustained an incise wound on the right parietal region and         another

injury on the right side of the chest, both described in the         injury

certificate as caused by hard and sharp object. The later injury is


                                                                      4 of 6
                                                               954ba1112-26


certified as grievous.   Jalidar’s arm injury is also described as caused

by hard and short object. Thus, without expressing any concluded

opinion, the medical material placed before the Court does not, prima

facie, disclose any distinct blunt-force injury which, at this stage, can be

specifically connected with the alleged stick blow attributed to the

present applicant. The submission of the learned APP that the

accusation of exhortation and the prosecution case based on common

intention will undisputedly require consideration at the time of trial.

Those aspects are not being discarded. However, for the limited

purpose of bail, the applicant’s overt-act is materially similar to that of

attributed to co- accused Rajesh and Datte, both of whom have already

been released on bail.      Noting has been pointed out indicating the

applicant’s stand on a graver footing compared to those co-accused

who are released on bail.


8.       The previous enmity over the land dispute also indicates that

occurrence arose out of a specific local dispute between the related

parties. The likelihood of recurrence is a circumstance relevant to the

consideration of bail, though not to the merits of the prosecution case.

Considering the applicant’s limited role, weapon attributed to him, the

medical certificate referred above and the orders passed in favour of

similarly placed co-accused and the fact that further detention is not

shown to be necessary for any specific investigation purpose, a case of

release of bail of the applicant is made out. The interference in the

investigation, non cooperation at the time of trial can be grounds which


                                                                      5 of 6
                                                                       954ba1112-26


           can be taken into consideration by imposing stringent condition while

           granting bail to the present applicant. Hence, the following order:

                                                 ORDER


           (i)   The Bail Application is allowed.

           (ii) The Applicant Govind Hiralal Gadhe, in connection with Crime
                 No. 98/2024, registered with Paithan Police Station, Dist.
                 Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under
                 Sections 307, 326, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
                 and Section 4 r//w 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 be
                 released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
                 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)/- with one or two sureties of the
                 like amount.

           (iii)) The Applicant shall attend trial on every date.

           (iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses
                 and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any
                 manner.

           (iv) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and address
                 to the investigating officer.




                                                         (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                                 6 of 6