SWARAJ KRUSHNA SOLSE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                   1                    902ba1350.268



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                902 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1350 OF 2026

               SWARAJ KRUSHNA SOLSE AND OTHERS
                               VERSUS
            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                   ...
          Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shekade Shashikant E
              APP for Respondents/State : Mr. D.J. Patil
       Advocate for the Respondent/Informant : Mr. R.G. Narwade
                                   …


                                CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                DATE     : 01.09.2026
PER COURT :



1.          Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties.


2.          At the outset, after hearing at length, when this Court

showed its dis-inclination to allow the application for applicants Ritesh,

Sani and Arbaj, the learned Advocate for the applicants, on instructions,

submits that he is withdrawing the application, in the light of the

statement made by the learned APP that the charge-sheet is almost

ready and will be filed within couple of days. He also seeks liberty to file

a fresh application on behalf of these three applicants, after the charge-

sheet is filed before the learned trial Court.


3.          Leave as sought is granted.


4.          Thus, the application of applicants Ritesh Bhausaheb

Sonawane, Sunny @ Chetan Baban Jadhav and Arbaj @Asif Kaleem
                                  2                      902ba1350.268



Shaikh is dismissed as withdrawn.


5.          In case the application is filed after the charge-sheet for bail,

the learned trial Court should consider the same on its own on merits.


6.          The present application in respect of Ritesh, Sani and Arbaj

is dismissed as withdrawn.


7.          So far as the applicant Swaraj is concerned, the case of the

prosecution is that on 07.06.2026 at about 9.30 p.m. that accused

Vaibhav and one accused by named Bhurya, Arbaj and Rahul

Chabandake alongwith 4 to 5 unknown persons had visited the shop of

the informant for purchasing betel leaves. The informant refused to give

them the same on the ground that they already had unpaid amount in

their   account, and therefore, he requested them to clear the earlier

dues. The accused had then left from the shop. However, it is alleged

that when the Complainant was at his house the accused persons came

to his house at 12.30 a.m. in the night and started verbally abusing him

and when the Complainant started requesting them not to abuse at that

time. It is alleged that the accused by name Bhurya assaulted the

Complainant on his eye brow with Chopper which he was holding. The

Complainant was then assaulted by Vaibhav with the help of wooden

stick which caused injuries to the informant on his right hand and back.

As far as accused Arbaj, Rahul and Bhurya are concerned they assaulted

the Complainant with fist and blows.        It is further alleged that the

accused Rahul took out Rs. 3,600/- from the pocket of the Complainant.
                                 3                      902ba1350.268



The other unknown persons who had accompanied the above named

accused started pelting stones on the roof of the Complainant’s house.

Further it is alleged that the accused who was with Vaibhav had

damaged the door of the house of the Complainant with iron sword and

started threatening the Complainant with his life. The informant alleges

that because of the terror the neighbours also feared and went inside

their houses and had closed the doors and windows of their houses. It is

further alleged that when the mother of the Complainant came out, the

accused persons also abused her and threatened her with life.           The

accused persons thereafter, left, but while leaving they further caused

damage to four wheeler which was parked on the road.          The present

offence was therefore, registered vide Cr. No. 306 of 2026 registered at

Kopargaon City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for the offence

punishable under Sections 119(1), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190

and 324(5), 112(2)(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short

“BNS”) and Section 5 and 7 of the Bombay Police Act, 4 r/w 25 of the

Arms Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Amendments Act. During the

investigation Section 111 (2) (b) of the BNS was added by the

Investigation Officer.   The applicant Swaraj came to be arrested       on

09.06.2026 and since then till date he is in custody.


8.          The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the

applicant Swaraj is not named in the FIR but however, his role and name

surfaced during the Course of investigation. He submits that even if the

applicant’s presence is being revealed at the time of investigation, the
                                  4                     902ba1350.268



Complainant who is an eye witness of the entire incident and is also an

injured withess does not ascribed any specific role to the present

applicant. He submits that two of the accused persons Rahul and Rohit

who have specific role in the alleged offences are already released on bail.

He further submits that the injuries that are caused, though not caused

by the present applicant but still are simple in nature and therefore, the

period undergone is sufficient to this Court to consider the Bail

Application of the present applicant Swaraj. He further submits that

there are no criminal antecedents to the present applicant.


9.          The learned APP for the respondent-State submits that the

FIR discloses the terror that accused persons are causing in the locality

and also the manner in which the entire offence has been committed

shows that they do not have any fear in their mind. He further argues

that all of them have without premeditated mind had left the house of

the Complainant and have also assaulted the Complainant as well the

Complainant’s property and the nearby vehicles standing on the road

were also damaged, so as to create terror in the mind of persons residing

in the said locality. The present offence is serious and it has attributed

the offence of organized crime which is punishable under Section 111(2)

(b) of the BNS.    He submits that taking into consideration the entire

nature and gravity of the offences, the application of the present

applicant Swaraj is liable to be rejected.


10.         I have heard both sides and have also perused the entire
                                 5                      902ba1350.268



record that has been produced by the learned APP pertaining to the

investigation.


11.         Before I consider the merits of the matter, the learned

Advocate Mr. R.G. Narwade appearing on behalf of the Complainant will

have to be taken in consideration for the reason that he makes

submission across the bar that he has instructions not to object for

grant of bail to the accused person Swaraj.


12.         The Complaint that has been registered at the instance of

the informant and was thereafter taken up for investigation, wherein the

entire investigation machinery has been implemented for revealing the

truth of the accusations. At this stage, the conduct of the informant in

appearing before the Court and stating that he has no complaint, is

required to be deprecated. The informant is put to the terms that, if it is

revealed that he has used the investigating machinery and also Court

machinery, who has subsequently spent         its crucial judicial time in

considering the remand applications, appropriate action will be initiated

against the Complainant. This, however, does not mean that where there

is a bonafide cause and the parties wish to settle the matter amongst

themselves, they cannot do so, however, when an offence of such gravity

and magnitude is committed, affecting the general public at large and

also creating hurdles in maintaining the peace and law in the society,

then such practice of registering offence and then settling with such

accused persons deserves to be condemned.
                                   6                      902ba1350.268




13.         As far as the merits of the present case is concerned, the

admitted position is that the FIR does not disclose the name of the

present applicant Swaraj and secondly even if a specific role has been

assigned to each and every accused persons, there is no such specific

role is assigned to the applicant Swaraj. Taking into consideration that

two accused persons Rahul and Rohit are already been released on bail

who comparatively have played more active role than the present

applicant, in that case the law of parity can be applied to the present

applicant Swaraj and he also can be enlarged on bail. Hence, the

following order :

                                  ORDER

      (i)  The Bail Application in respect of applicant Swaraj
      Krushna Solse is allowed.

      (ii) The application of applicants namely Ritesh Bhausaheb
      Sonawane, Sunny @ Chetan Baban Jadhav and Arbaj @Asif
      Kaleem Shaikh is dismissed as withdrawn.

      (iii) The applicant Swaraj Krushna Solse, shall be released on
      bail in Crime No. 306 of 2026 registered at Kopargaon City
      Police Station, District Ahalyanagar, for the offences punishable
      under Sections 119(1), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and
      324(5) and 111(2)(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
      Section 5 and 7 of the Bombay Police Act, Section 4 r/w 25 of
      the Arms Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Amendments Act, on
      furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
      Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount,
      subject to the following conditions :

          a)     The applicant shall attend the concerned Investigating
          Officer till filing of the charge-sheet, unless his attendance is
          specifically exempted.
                                     7                     902ba1350.268



             b)    The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact,
             threaten, induce or influence the informant or any
             prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
             prosecution evidence.

             c)    The applicant shall furnish his current residential
             addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer
             and the trial Court within seven days of his release, intimate
             any change forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer
             upon prior written notice if further investigation is required.

             d)     The applicant shall not leave India without prior
             permission of the trial Court and, if he possess passports,
             shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days
             of their release.

             e)     The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence
             of a similar nature while on bail.

             f)    Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
             prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.

             g)    All above observations in this order are prima facie
             and confined to the decision of this bail application only.
             The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the
             evidence led before it.

             h)    The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.




                                         (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)




mahajansb/