SOMA ALIAS TIGER ALIAS SAGAR DAGDU CHAUDHARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:46556
                                                                                 BA-1347-26.odt



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1347 OF 2026

         Soma @ Tiger @ Sagar Dagdu Chaudhari                    ..APPLICANT
               VERSUS
         State of Maharashtra and Another                        ..RESPONDENTS

                                                 ....
         Mr. D.R. Kale, Advocate for applicant
         Mr. S.A. Gaikwad, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State
                                               ....

                                               CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                               DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026

         PER COURT :

         1.          The applicant, Soma alias Tiger alias Sagar Dagdu Chaudhari, seeks

         regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

         2023, in connection with Crime No. 369 of 2025 registered with Chalisgaon

         City Police Station, District Jalgaon, for offences punishable under Sections 109,

         351(3) and 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

         Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment

         Act, 1932, and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act for violation of the

         prohibitory order under Section 37(1)(3).      He was arrested on 30 th August

         2025. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed.


         2.          The prosecution states that Prabhakar Pandurang Chaudhari was

         injured in the alleged offence, who happens to be father of the informant and is

         a former Municipal Councilor. During an encroachment removal drive, the


                                            1 / 12
                                                                       BA-1347-26.odt



Municipal Council removed a pan stall associated with the applicant's friend

Bhushan Chaudhari. The applicant allegedly believed that Prabhakar was

responsible for the said action and also lodging of the criminal proceedings

arising from his confrontation with the municipal employees. According to the

prosecution, the applicant consequently held a grudge against Prabhakar.


3.         The prosecution further states that on 26 th August 2025, at about

11.00 p.m., Prabhakar was proceeding on his scooter along Station Road,

Chalisgaon, near Vaishnavi Saree Centre. A Swift Dzire car struck the scooter

from behind, causing him to fall. The applicant and his associates allegedly

alighted with sickles and swords and assaulted him repeatedly. The applicant is

specifically alleged to have inflicted sickle blows on the face, head, chest and

hands of Prabhakar. The first information report also attributes blows on the

neck and right hand to him. According to the eyewitnesses, he threatened those

who attempted to intervene by brandishing the sickle. Prabhakar was taken first

to Deore Hospital, thereafter to General Hospital, Dhule, and subsequently to

Ashoka Medicover Hospital, Nashik. His son Chetan lodged the report on 27 th

August 2025.


4.         Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been

falsely implicated and that the informant did not witness the assault. The

injured's detailed statement was recorded on 13th September 2025, well after

the incident, and its reliability is disputed. The applicant disputes the alleged

motive, pointing out that the municipal complaint does not mention Prabhakar

                                  2 / 12
                                                                      BA-1347-26.odt



as having caused the encroachment action. It is also contended that Prabhakar

had other political enemies and had suffered an earlier assault. The applicant

disputes his connection with the car and the allegation of a specific overt act.

The injured has since been discharged from hospital. Investigation and

recoveries are complete, and further detention is said to serve no purpose.

Reliance is placed on the release of the co-accused, particularly Shivaji alias

Nana Suresh Patil by order dated 26th March 2026 in Bail Application No.380 of

2026 and Gaurav Aadhar Chaudhari by order dated 6th May 2026 in Bail

Application No.684 of 2026 also on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme court

dated 15th September 2026 granting bail to accused sunny @ Harish Abba Patil.

The applicant seeks parity, relies on the period of custody and the absence of

progress in the trial, and offers to remain outside Chalisgaon and comply with

stringent conditions. He also relies on his permanent residence and family

responsibilities and undertakes not to influence witnesses.


5.         Ld. APP for the state submits that the applicant's name and role are

disclosed from the outset and are supported by the injured's statement and

medical documents along with the statements of eyewitnesses. The applicant is

alleged to be the principal aggressor, with a personal motive against injured

Prabhakar. The assault followed the knocking down of the scooter and involved

repeated blows with sharp weapons on vital parts of the body. The prosecution

relies on the medical certificates, seizure of the car, seizure of weapons, the

applicant's pointing out of the place where weapons were discarded, and the


                                  3 / 12
                                                                         BA-1347-26.odt



seizure of burnt clothing remnants from the place shown by him. It also relies

on the injured's account recorded during his transportation to hospital and the

material concerning the accused meeting at Hotel Diamond before the

occurrence. The applicant's role is stated to be materially different from those

considered in the orders granting bail to the co-accused. The prosecution also

expresses apprehension that the injured and eyewitnesses may be threatened if

the applicant is released.


6.         I have considered the material placed on record. At this stage, the

Court must assess whether there is a prima facie case and whether the

circumstances justify release on bail. The evidence is not to be finally evaluated,

nor is guilt to be determined. The nature of the accusation, the applicant's

individual role, the supporting material, the period of custody and the need to

protect the trial must be considered together. The seriousness of the charge, by

itself, cannot replace this assessment.


7.         The submission that the informant is not an eyewitness is correct.

However, the prosecution case does not rest solely on his statement of the

occurrence. Amol Sudam Chaudhari and Devidas alias Vishal Arun Chaudhari

claim to have witnessed the assault. Amol's statement dated 28 th August 2025,

at paper-book page 166, attributes repeated sickle blows on the face, head,

chest and hands to the applicant. It attributes sickle blows on the legs of the

injured to accused Gaurav, sword blows on the hands and back of the injured to

accused Sunny alias Harish Aba Patil, and sword blows on the body of the

                                   4 / 12
                                                                           BA-1347-26.odt



injured to accused Shivaji alias Nana Suresh Patil. The applicant is further

alleged to have threatened the witnesses when they tried to stop the attack.

These are specific allegations of active participation, rather than an allegation of

mere presence or association.


8.         The delay in recording the injured's detailed statement has also been

considered. The record contains a medical endorsement dated 4 th September

2025 that he was not in a condition to give a statement and was

tracheostomized. Further, the applicant was named in the first information

report itself. The material concerning the statement recorded of Ganesh

Chaudhari during transportation to hospital refers to present applicant Tiger

Soma and other persons. Its admissibility and evidentiary weight will be

determined at trial. For the present purpose, however, the applicant's

identification is not shown to have originated only in the later statement dated

13th September 2025 but it has been referred by the eye witness right from the

inception. The contention concerning delayed implication therefore does not

place him on the same footing as the co-accused whose names were absent from

the earliest statement.


9.         The medical certificates require consideration in some detail because

the applicant disputes the gravity and nature of the act attributed to him. The

certificate issued by General Hospital, Dhule, at paper-book pages 197 to 199,

records the following facial injuries, an oblique wound over the left eyebrow

splitting its lateral third, with a palpable full-thickness bony fracture; a partial-

                                    5 / 12
                                                                       BA-1347-26.odt



thickness wound over the left lower eyelid extending laterally over the orbital

area; a full-thickness wound on the left side of the face extending from

approximately 2 cm from the angle of the mouth towards the post-auricular

area; and a muscle-deep wound on the left side of the chin extending towards

the submandibular region, measuring approximately 3 x 2 x 1 cm. In relation to

the extensive lateral facial wound, the doctor records exposure of the buccal fat

pad, a full-thickness cut of the buccinator muscle, laceration of the parotid

gland, complete cutting of the masseter muscle, and splitting of the body and

angle of the mandible. These findings indicate injury extending well beyond the

surface of the skin.


10.        The certificate further records a bone-deep wound over the left

mastoid extending towards the occipital region, approximately 4 x 1 x 1 cm; a

wound on the upper part of the left pinna, approximately 5 x 1 x 1 cm, with

cartilage exposed; and a wound over the ear lobule, approximately 2 x 1 x 0.5

cm, with tissue loss. An avulsion injury of the left ear is also noted. The scalp

injuries comprise a bone-deep wound over the left parietal region,

approximately 3 x 1 cm; another bone-deep wound over the left parietal region,

approximately 4 x 1 x 1 cm; a bone-deep post-auricular wound, approximately

6 x 2 cm; a left occipital wound, approximately 5 x 1 x 1 cm; and an abrasion

over the forehead. The references to avulsion and tissue loss are descriptions of

the ear injury and are not treated as additional wounds for the purpose of

arriving at a numerical total.


                                  6 / 12
                                                                        BA-1347-26.odt




11.        On the left chest, a wound approximately 6 x 3 x 2 cm is recorded,

with puncture of the pleura and air leakage. On the back, there is a wound

approximately 5 x 2 cm extending into the subcutaneous tissue and another

below the nape, approximately 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm. The left upper arm bears a

wound over the deltoid region, approximately 5 x 3 x 2 cm, and two wounds

over its lateral aspect, approximately 5 x 1 x 1 cm and 4 x 3 x 2 cm. There is a

left elbow wound approximately 8 x 3 x 2 cm and a muscle-deep right forearm

wound approximately 8 x 3 x 2 cm. The left hand bears wounds approximately

7 x 2 x 2 cm and 8 x 3 x 2 cm, and the right hand bears a wound approximately

8 x 4 x 3 cm. Bilateral crush injuries of the hands are also recorded. The patient

underwent emergency exploration with insertion of a left intercostal drain and

closed reduction with K-wire fixation. Imaging showed left-sided pleural

effusion, with traumatic hemothorax considered likely. The doctor describes the

injuries as grievous, caused by a sharp object and sustained within six hours of

examination. The Ashoka Medi cover certificate at paper-book page 201

additionally records multiple deep wounds on the face and head, a puncture

wound on the left chest, and multiple wounds with fractures in both hands,

classified as grievous. These descriptions corroborate the injuries already noted

and are not counted again as separate injuries.


12.        The medical findings must be read with the specific attribution in

witness Amol Sudam Chaudhari's statement at paper-book page 166. He

attributes repeated blows with an iron sickle on the face, head, chest and hands

                                   7 / 12
                                                                         BA-1347-26.odt



to the present applicant Soma. He separately attributes sickle blows on the legs

to Gaurav Aadhar Chaudhari, sword blows on the hands and back to Sunny

alias Harish Aba Patil, and sword blows on the body to Shivaji alias Nana

Suresh Patil, without specifying a particular body region for the latter in that

passage. Thus, the applicant is expressly attributed repeated blows on the face,

head and chest, where the certificates record deep facial and bone-deep scalp

wounds and a chest wound involving puncture of the pleura. This supplies

prima facie medical support for the nature of the assault attributed to him. At

the same time, blows on the hands are attributed to both the applicant and

Sunny; the entire set of hand injuries cannot therefore be exclusively assigned

to the applicant. Nor do the certificates identify which assailant caused each

measured wound. The specific medical injuries corresponding to the alleged

blows by accused Gaurav on the legs are not separately described in the

certificates discussed above. The precise allocation of each wound and the

liability of the accused for the concerted assault are matters for trial. For

deciding bail, the significant circumstance is the applicant's specifically alleged

attack on the face, head and chest, considered with his personal motive, earliest

identification and threats to those attempting to intervene. The role of the other

accused has not been treated as mere presence, since the eyewitness also

attributes armed assaults to them.


13.        The submission that injured Prabhakar has recovered sufficiently to

be discharged does not diminish the nature of the injuries inflicted. The


                                     8 / 12
                                                                        BA-1347-26.odt



allegation under Section 109 of BNS must be assessed with reference to the

weapon, the manner of attack, the parts of the body targeted and the

surrounding circumstances. Knocking down the victim and repeatedly attacking

him with sharp weapons, including on the head and chest, prima facie provides

a basis for the accusation of attempted murder. The eventual survival of the

injured does not, by itself, negate that accusation. The defense concerning other

political enemies and an earlier assault remains open at trial, but does not

presently displace the specific material connecting this applicant with this

occurrence.


14.        There is also material concerning seizures and the applicant's alleged

conduct after the occurrence. The seizure papers dated 30th August 2025 record

the Swift Dzire car as having been seized from the applicant. The statement of

its registered owner, Kiran Nimba Wagh, states that he had earlier handed over

the car to Sagar Dagdu Chaudhari under an arrangement concerning payment

of the remaining installments, although registration had not been transferred.

Consequently, the contention that the car was not registered in the applicant's

name does not, by itself, answer the prosecution material concerning his

possession and use of it. This circumstance is relevant because the car is alleged

to have been used to knock down the scooter and leave the spot.


15.        The Panchama dated 4th September 2025 records that the applicant

led the police and panch witnesses to an open place near Baleshwar in Gujarat,

where remnants of burnt clothing were found, seized and sealed. The weapon

                                   9 / 12
                                                                      BA-1347-26.odt



material requires a further distinction. A blood-stained sickle was seized from

the scene of the assault. Eyewitness Amol states that the applicant threw down

his sickle there before leaving. The memorandum and pointing-out Panchama

dated 1st September 2025 concern the Girna river bridge near Pilkhod. They

record that two sickles and two swords had already been found and seized by

Mehunbare Police on 27th August 2025, before the applicant pointed out that

location. Those four weapons cannot therefore be described as fresh recoveries

made in consequence of his subsequent disclosure. The evidence of seizure of

the car and the burnt clothing remnants or the eyewitness material concerning

the sickle left at the scene are also crucial. The medical opinion regarding the

seized sharp weapons is also a supporting circumstance.


16.        The principal submission is that the co-accused have been released

on bail. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and

another, (2021) 6 SCC 230, paragraph 26, the Supreme Court explained that

parity depends upon the role attributed to the accused and his position in

relation to the incident and the victim. Release of another accused in the same

crime does not automatically establish an entitlement to bail; the relevant

circumstances must be compared.


17.        The order dated 26th March 2026 granting bail to Shivaji expressly

notes that the first information report did not name him and that the recorded

account of the injured during transportation to hospital did not disclose his

involvement. It also notes that the enmity was essentially between Prabhakar

                                  10 / 12
                                                                        BA-1347-26.odt



and accused No.1 Soma the present applicant. The order dated 6 th May 2026

granting bail to Gaurav adopts the reasons in Shivaji's case and considers the

absence of Gaurav's name from the first information report and his subsequent

implication. So also the bail granted by the Hon’ble Supreme court to accused

sunny is based on the bail granted to the co accused above. Those

considerations do not apply to the present applicant, who was named at the

outset and is attributed the personal grudge, repeated sickle blows on vital parts

and threats to those seeking to intervene. The fact that the co-accused are also

alleged to have used weapons has been kept in view. The distinction lies in the

applicant's own role and the material supporting his identification, rather than

merely in the weapons carried. Even accepting that the remaining co-accused

have been released, parity cannot overcome these differences.


18.        The applicant's custody since 30th August 2025, completion of

investigation, and the trial position stated in the application are factors in his

favour. His offer to remain outside Chalisgaon has also been considered.

However, the absence of a need for further interrogation does not conclude the

question of regular bail. The applicant is specifically alleged to have threatened

persons who tried to intervene, and the injured and material witnesses are from

the same locality. Read with the alleged personal enmity and the material

concerning destruction of clothing, the apprehension of interference with

witnesses cannot presently be dismissed as a general assertion. The application

also discloses a pending case in Crime No.201 of 2025. Its pendency is not a


                                  11 / 12
                                                                        BA-1347-26.odt



finding of guilt and is not treated as an independent ground for rejection. On a

cumulative assessment, the custody undergone and the offered conditions do

not presently outweigh the specific prima facie material, the applicant's leading

role and the need to protect the evidence. Continued custody must, however, be

accompanied by an earnest effort to proceed with the trial.


19.        For these reasons, no case is made out for exercise of discretion in

favour of the applicant. The application is rejected. The following order is

passed.

                                      ORDER

           (i)     Bail Application No.1347 of 2026 is rejected.


           (ii)    The Trial Court shall endeavor to proceed with Sessions Case
                   No.219 of 2025 expeditiously, keeping in view the applicant's
                   continued custody, and shall avoid unnecessary adjournments.
                   The parties shall cooperate with the trial.

           (iii)   The observations made above are confined to the decision of
                   this bail application. The Trial Court shall decide the case
                   independently, uninfluenced by these observations.



                                              ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. )




                                    12 / 12