Bombay High Court
OMKAR SANTOSH CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ABHAY S WAGHWASE
Holding
Bail was denied because the applicant's alleged participation was substantiated by a witness statement and the seriousness of the offence outweighed the procedural omission in the FIR.
Summary
The applicant, Omkar Chavan, sought regular bail for offences under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 352, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(3) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, arising from a February 2026 incident involving a knife (katti). Although his name does not appear in the FIR, a co‑witness, Krushna Waghmare, identified him as a participant. The complainant suffered grievous injuries, including a stab wound and a fractured rib. The State argued that the seriousness of the offence, the use of a deadly weapon, and the witness identification justified denial of bail. The Court held that the witness statement and the nature of the injuries outweighed any procedural defect in the FIR, and consequently rejected the bail application, allowing the applicant to re‑apply only if charges are not framed within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR but is identified by a witness.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and the use of a deadly weapon preclude bail.
- Whether the absence of charge framing within six months affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- arms act
- serious offence
- witness testimony
- FIR omission
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26397
BA-1153-2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1153 OF 2026
OMKAR S/O SANTOSH CHAVAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH POLICE OFFICER,
POLICE STATION M.I.D.C. LAUTR
…..
Mr. P. P. More, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for Respondent-State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 06.07.2026
Pronounced on : 07.07.2026
ORDER :
1. Instant regular bail application is in consequence to crime
bearing no. 063 of 2026 registered at M.I.D.C. Latur Police Station,
District Latur for offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2),
352, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(3) of BNS and under Sections 4, 25 of
Arms Act.
2. Pointing to the date of arrest of applicant as 10.03.2026,
learned counsel submitted that, present applicant was not named in
the FIR. That, only six other persons are named. Subsequently he is
tried to be involved, but no specific act is attributed to him. Learned
counsel pointed out that, even otherwise injury suffered is simple in
nature. Investigation is over and chargesheet is already filed on
28.04.2026, but charge is not yet framed and there are no immediate
BA-1153-2026
-2-
chances of commencement of trial and hence, relief of bail is urged
for.
3. Learned APP opposed on the ground that, serious offence is
committed. There is use of deadly weapon like katti. That, applicant is
specifically named by one Krushna Sanjay Waghmare. That, there is
every possibility of misuse of liberty and on such grounds, bail is
opposed.
4. Heard. Perused the papers.
5. FIR dated 05.02.2026 is at the instance of Shreyas
Suryawanshi. It is reported that on 04.02.2026, while he had been to
a grocery shop, at that time one Ganesh Mashalkar, who was under
influence of some substance, abused him for no reason and therefore
was questioned. It is reported that around 9.30 p.m. when he went to
a pan shop with his friends, Ganesh Mashalkar, Nitin Dhangule and
four unknown persons came in auto rickshaw and Ganesh Mashalkar
inflicted blow with katti on his hand. Thereafter Ganesh also issued
threats to kill after which Nitin Dhangule and Ganesh Mashalkar
again gave blows of katti on waist and back, but complainant
managed to escape.
BA-1153-2026
-3-
6. Thus, though present applicant’s name does not figure in the
names of persons provided in the FIR, his name does figure in the
statement of one Krushna Waghmare, who was with the informant at
the time of incident and he had clear opportunity to witness the
occurrence. Injury certificate of informant Shreyas shows that he had
suffered stab injury over thoracic region and contused lacerated
wound on left hand. First injury, i.e. stab injury is grievous. There is
linear displaced fracture to the right 10 th rib also. Patient was
admitted from 05.02.2026 to 14.02.2026. Therefore, though name of
applicant does not figure in the FIR, the very companion of
complainant has named him and has also defined his role. Failure of
informant to specifically name applicant, itself is no good ground to
extend benefit of bail. Resultantly, taking such material into
consideration, following order is passed :
ORDER
I. Application is rejected.
II. Applicant is at liberty to move afresh for bail if charge is not
framed within six months.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
Checking your session…