Bombay High Court
SACHIN SARJERAO CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court allowed the bail application, granting regular bail to the applicant with conditions.
Summary
Sachin Sarjerao Chavan was arrested on 17‑Nov‑2024 for assaulting an informant who later died of septicemia following facial bone fractures. The prosecution alleged that Chavan struck the victim with a stone, causing serious injuries, while the post‑mortem indicated death was due to infection rather than the injuries. Three co‑accused had already been released on bail, and Chavan’s counsel argued parity and that his role did not cause the death. The State contended that Chavan played an active role in the assault and that bail should be denied. After examining the charge‑sheet, injury certificate, and post‑mortem report, the court found no direct link between Chavan’s alleged assault and the cause of death and, noting the lack of trial progress, granted regular bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- The applicability of bail in a serious offence involving assault leading to death under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged role in the assault is sufficient to deny bail despite the cause of death being septicemia.
- Whether parity with co‑accused who were granted bail warrants the same relief for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 103(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1), 37(3)
Subjects
- bail
- assault
- homicide
- cause of death
- parity
- post‑mortem
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Maharashtra Police Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
1 958BA1240.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
958 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1240 OF 2026
Sachin Sarjerao Chavan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
...
Miss Sakshi S. Dushing h/f Mr. Rahul R. Karpe - Advocate for Applicant
Mr. V. K. Kotecha - APP for the State
...
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the
learned APP for the State. With their able assistance, I have perused the
entire investigation report.
2. The present Application seeking regular bail is filed by the
Applicant, who came to be arrested on 17.11.2024, in connection with
Crime No. 1213 of 2024 registered with Tofkhana Police Station,
Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2),
324(4), 189(2), 190, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 191(2), 191(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 37(1), 37(3) and 135 of
the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and subsequently added offence
under Sections 103(1), 103(2) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, pertains to the incident
2 958BA1240.2026.odt
which took place on 02.11.2024 at about 08:00 p.m., while the
Informant was sitting near the temple situated near Kondya Mama
Chowk. It is alleged that the present Applicant, along with the other co-
accused persons, who happened to be relatives of the Informant, came
there on a motorcycle and took the Informant-Deceased under the
pretext of accompanying them for taking money from the brother of one
of the co-accused, namely, Anil Chavan. It is alleged that, as the
Applicant and the co-accused were related to and known to the
Informant, he accompanied them on their motorcycle. It is alleged that,
suddenly, the original accused No. 3 stopped the motorcycle near one
Bamboo Shop situated on the Ahilyanagar to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Road, and thereafter, all the accused persons, including the Applicant,
started abusing and assaulting the Informant-Deceased. Each accused
person allegedly assaulted the deceased with different kinds of weapons.
As far as the present Applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he
assaulted the Informant-Deceased by picking up a stone lying on the
roadside and inflicted serious blows on the head and back of the
Informant-Deceased, thereby causing injuries. The Informant-Deceased
was thereafter taken to the hospital and admitted for treatment. As he
was conscious, his statement came to be recorded by the Police, and the
said statement was treated as the First Information Report.
4. The record further indicates that, while taking treatment in
the hospital, the Informant succumbed to the injuries. Post-mortem was
3 958BA1240.2026.odt
conducted, and the report mentions the cause of death as “Septicemia in
a case of facial bone fractures”. It also makes reference to the cause of
death as “Infection of the blood by poisonous bacteria”. The incident
took place on 02.11.2024. The Informant-Deceased was taking
treatment in the hospital till 13.11.2024 and, in the hospital itself, he
succumbed to the injuries. The offence was converted into an offence
under Section 103 of the BNS, and the Applicant came to be arrested on
17.11.2024.
5. Before proceeding to appreciate the role of the present
Applicant, it is necessary to mention that, in all, there are five accused
persons, including the Applicant, out of whom three accused persons
have been released on bail.
6. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the
Applicant has been in custody since 17.11.2024 and, till date, the trial
has not commenced. She further argues that the other three accused
persons have been released on bail and that the role attributed to the
present Applicant is on par with that attributed to the co-accused who
have been released on bail. She thus claims parity and prays for the
release of the present Applicant.
7. In addition to the aforesaid submissions, the learned
Advocate for the Applicant also argues that the role attributed to the
present Applicant is to have assaulted the Informant-Deceased with the
4 958BA1240.2026.odt
aid of a stone lying on the road. The alleged assault was caused on the
head and back of the Informant-Deceased. The cause of death clearly
specifies that the death is not due to the injuries but is due to
‘Septicemia in a case of facial bone fractures’ and due to ‘Infection of the
blood by poisonous bacteria’. There seems to be a case of medical
negligence or medical complications, however, according to her, the
injuries inflicted due to the assault by the present Applicant are not
responsible for the death of the deceased. She relies upon the order
passed by this Court in the case of the co-accused, namely, Pravin
Subhash Pawar, wherein the Court had taken into consideration the
specific role attributed to the said accused and had thereafter observed
that the death was not due to the injury caused by the said accused and,
therefore, had released him on bail. She further submits that the post-
mortem report does not indicate that any serious injuries were caused to
the head or back of the deceased. She, therefore, submits that the
present Applicant, who has been in custody since 17.11.2024, deserves
to be released on bail.
8. The learned APP vehemently opposes the said Application.
He argues that the offence is serious and that the present Applicant has
played an active role in the entire offence right from its initiation. He
submits that the present Applicant has involved himself in misleading
the Informant-Deceased to accompany them and, after taking him to a
lonely place, all the accused persons assaulted him. He further argues
5 958BA1240.2026.odt
that the specific role of assault with the aid of a stone has been assigned
to the present Applicant and that grievous and serious injuries were
caused due to the assault inflicted by the present Applicant. He, thus,
argues that the present Applicant does not deserve to be released on bail
and that the Application be rejected.
9. The learned APP further argues that the Injury Certificate,
which was issued first in time, notes that there is a fracture to the scalp
of the deceased. He further submits that the order granting bail to the
co-accused, Pravin Subhash Pawar, categorically makes a reference to
the role played by the present Applicant by holding that the assault was
caused on a vital part by the present Applicant with the aid of a stone.
He thus submits that this is not a case of parity. In view of the material
available on record and the direct involvement and role attributed to the
present Applicant, the bail application be rejected.
10. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned
Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State and have
also perused the documents placed on record by way of the charge-
sheet, as well as the orders passed granting bail to the other co-accused
persons. No doubt, the offence alleged against the present Applicant is
serious, and the First Information Report clearly mentions the role
attributed to the present Applicant. The present Applicant has been
shown to be involved not only in accompanying the assailants but has
6 958BA1240.2026.odt
also actively played a role in inflicting injuries on the head and back of
the deceased Informant with the help of a stone lying on the roadside.
Taking into consideration the role assigned to the present Applicant, the
documents placed on record by the Investigating Officer need to be
scrutinized. The important piece of evidence found in the charge-sheet is
the post-mortem report, which clearly indicates that the cause of death
is due to “Septicemia in a case of facial bone fractures” and “Infection of
the blood by poisonous bacteria.”
11. Taking into consideration the individual role attributed to
each of the accused, the allegation of assault on the facial bone or face
of the Informant is against one Sachin Pawar, who is in custody. It is also
necessary to observe that Column No. 17, which makes reference to
surface wounds and injuries, clearly mentions that the injuries caused on
the head are healed. In Column No. 19, pertaining to the internal
examination of the head, there are no injuries to the head of the
deceased. Having regard to the role that has been assigned to the
present Applicant, the post mortem report, and the fact that there has
been no recovery of the stone by the Investigating Agency, at this stage,
prima facie, I am inclined to enlarge the present Applicant on bail for
the aforesaid reasons, coupled with the fact that the Applicant has been
in custody since 17.11.2024 and there has been no progress towards the
commencement of the trial till date.
7 958BA1240.2026.odt
12. As far as the trial is concerned, the learned APP submits
that the charge has been framed and summons has been issued to one
witness. Be that as it may, the trial has not proceeded till date and,
therefore, further custodial interrogation or further custody of the
Applicant is unwarranted. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
[i] The Bail Application No. 1240 of 2026 is allowed.
[ii] The Applicant, Sachin Sarjerao Chavan, be released on
regular bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand) with one or two solvent sureties in the like
amount, in connection with Crime No.1213/2024 registered
with Tofkhana Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the
offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 324(4),
189(2), 190, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 191(2) and 191(3) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 37(1), 37(3)
and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and subsequently
added sections 103(1), 103(2) and 118(2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the following conditions :
(a) The Applicant is directed to attend the concerned
police station and report to the concerned Police
Station Tofkhana, Ahiyanagar on every Monday
between 12:00 hrs and 14:00 hrs., till framing of
charge.
8 958BA1240.2026.odt
(b) The Applicant shall reside outside Ahilyanagar
District till the framing of charge, except for the
purpose of attending the concerned Police Station
on every Monday between 12:00 hrs. and 14:00
hrs., as directed under condition (a) above, and
the date of the Trial Court as directed under
condition (c) below.
(c) The Applicant shall attend each and every date of
the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by
the Trial Court on emergent consideration.
(d) The Applicant shall not pressurize the
prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence, in any manner.
(e) The Applicant shall submit their Aadhar and Pan
Card to the Investigating Officer and detailed
addresses and phone numbers of applicants and
two of the near relatives.
(f) Single violation of the above conditions on the
part of the applicant would entitle the
prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.
[iii] Bail Application stands disposed of.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]
JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/09/2026 12:56:04
Checking your session…