BADRINATH JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42609
                                                -1-
                                                                          40.BA-1364-2026

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1364 OF 2026

                           BADRINATH S/O. MURLIDHAR JADHAV
                                        VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                              .....
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.
              Yash Anil Jadhav a/w Vishwambhar Keshav Bhosale
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. D. J. Patil
              Advocate for Original Informant : Mr.Ishwar D. Narode
                                              .....

                                           CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                           DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.          The present applicant seeks his release on regular bail

              under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 197 of

              2026,    registered   with   Bidkin     Police   Station,    Chhatrapati

              Sambhajinagar (Rural) for the offences punishable under Section

              109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

              (BNS).



              2.          The applicant came to be arrested on 25 th March, 2026.

              Since then, the applicant has been in custody. The investigation in

              the present offence is completed and the charge sheet has been

              filed on 15th June, 2026.     It is submitted that, along with the

              present applicant, there is another co-accused, who happens to be

              the son of present applicant, is also in custody from 7th April, 2026.
                                -2-
                                                      40.BA-1364-2026




3.          The prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 12:00

noon on 19th March, 2026, a quarrel took place between another

son of the applicant by name Vaibhav and the son of informant

namely Vivek Moti Jadhav. The dispute was then settled at the

spot.   At about 6.00 to 6.30 p.m. on the same day, when the

informant injured was standing near Adarsh Kirana Shop, a Bolero

vehicle bearing registration No. MH-16-AT-4719 approached the

spot. The vehicle was being driven by the applicant's son co-

accused Vivek Jadhav, while the present applicant was seated

beside him. It is alleged that the applicant pointed towards the

injured, who was standing near the Kirana shop and further

alleged that the co-accused then drove the vehicle towards the

injured and gave him a forceful dash and dragged him for about 70

to 80 feet. The injured sustained fracture injuries to both his legs

and other injuries are also caused to the victim. The prosecution

therefore alleges that the applicant and the co-accused acted in

furtherance of their common intention, attempted to cause death

of the injured.



4.          Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that

the entire act of driving the vehicle and causing the impact is

attributed to the co-accused. No physical act causing injuries is
                                 -3-
                                                      40.BA-1364-2026

attributed to the present applicant. He further argues that the

earliest hospital intimation dated 19th March 2026 merely states

that the injured was struck by a Bolero vehicle while standing on

the roadside. It does not name the applicant, neither refers to any

hand gestures made by the present applicant nor states that the

vehicle was deliberately driven over the injured.



5.         Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the

statements of the alleged eye-witnesses were recorded only on 30 th

March, 2026 and the allegation about the applicant pointing

towards the injured has been repeated in those statements without

any accompanying words. There is also nothing in the investigative

material to suggest that the applicant had, in fact, commanded or

committed any other conduct indicating that the applicant had

directed the co-accused to drive the vehicle over the injured.



6.         Learned Senior Counsel also argues that, the spot

panchanama does not independently establish the alleged dragging

for about 70 to 80 feet in a manner connecting any act of the

applicant with the occurrence. It is submitted that mere ownership

of the vehicle or the applicant's presence in it cannot establish

common intention. Even the gesture that has been attributed to the

applicant of pointing a finger towards the injured cannot be said to
                                 -4-
                                                       40.BA-1364-2026

be common intention or conspiracy to commit an attempt to

murder the injured person. He argues that the applicant has no

criminal antecedents. The charge sheet has already been filed and

further detention is unnecessary.



7.          Learned APP opposed the application and submitted

that the injured and the eye-witnesses have stated that the

applicant pointed towards the injured immediately before the co-

accused drove the vehicle in his direction. His entire thrust of the

argument is that, the co-accused son has committed the offence,

the involvement of the present applicant is equally established in

the alleged offence. The incident was preceded by a dispute

between the two families and the subsequent conduct of co-accused

in ramming the vehicle and fleeing from the spot is relied upon to

infer common intention. Attention was also invited to the injury

certificate showing eight injuries, out of which five are described as

grievous. The vehicle belongs to the applicant. Considering the

nature of incident and the possibility of the applicants influencing

the witnesses, the learned APP stated that the applicant should not

be released on bail.



8.          Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, the

original informant adopted the arguments canvassed by the
                                 -5-
                                                         40.BA-1364-2026

learned APP. He also submitted that, in addition to that, there are

three non-cognizable offences registered against relative of the

applicant. He submits that these NCs were registered subsequent

to the incident and arrest of the applicant. This shows that there is

enmity between the entire family and the informant and his family.

He, therefore, prays that the application be rejected.



9.         I have considered the rival submissions and have

perused the investigation papers. The injuries sustained by the

injured are undoubtedly serious. The medical papers disclose

fracture of both lower ribs, apart from other injuries. The

seriousness of the injuries and the manner in which the vehicle

was allegedly driven are relevant while considering the accusation

under Section 109 of the BNS. At the same time, individual role

attributed to the present applicant must be distinguished from the

direct act attributed to the co-accused.



10.        The Bolero vehicle was admittedly driven by the co-

accused. It was the co-accused who controlled its speed and

direction and allegedly drove it against the injured. The present

applicant was a passenger and the only act attributed to the

present applicant at the crucial moment is that he pointed towards

the injured. Neither the FIR nor the statements presently brought
                                      -6-
                                                           40.BA-1364-2026

to the notice of this Court attribute any words, command or

exhortation to the applicant when the vehicle was driven towards

the injured.



11.           Perusal of Section 3(5) of the BNS embodies the

principle of joint liability. Common intention with the act sought to

be attributed ordinarily has to be inferred from the conduct of the

accused and the surrounding circumstances. Nevertheless, there

must be material capable of indicating a meeting of minds and

participation in furtherance of the shared intention. Presence,

common       relationship   or   association    by    themselves cannot

substitute proof of the common intention required under the said

provision.



12.           In the present case, the allegation of pointing is

undoubtedly a circumstance which the prosecution may prove and

rely upon at the time of trial. However, viewed at this preliminary

stage, a bare gesture without any accompanying words or other

conduct is capable of more than one interpretation. Whether it

constituted    identification    of   the   injured   simpliciter   or   an

instruction to use the vehicle as a weapon is a matter that will have

to be determined after the witnesses are tested at the trial.
                                 -7-
                                                     40.BA-1364-2026

13.          The chronology of the prosecution material also cannot

be overlooked. The contemporaneous hospital intimation dated

19th March, 2026 records that the injured was struck by a vehicle

while he was standing and sustained injuries to both legs. Neither

does it name the present applicant nor does it record any gesture

or direction by him. The FIR containing the allegation in the case

was recorded only on the following day. The statements of the

alleged witnesses were recorded on 30th March, 2026.



14.          This Court does not propose to pronounce upon the

fruitfulness of the first statement at the stage of bail. The timing

and evidentiary value will be matters for trial. Nevertheless, the

chronology is relevant for the limited purpose of assessing whether

the continued pre-trial detention of the applicant is presently

necessary.



15.          The earlier quarrel and the statements concerning the

subsequent     confrontation   provide   the   background   to   the

occurrence. They do not, without further evidence, conclusively

demonstrate that the applicant shared the intention of the driver

to run the vehicle into the injured. Similarly, ownership of the

vehicle and departure from the spot are relevant circumstances

but cannot, at this stage, bridge the gap in relation to the
                                  -8-
                                                       40.BA-1364-2026

applicant's shared intention. The gravity of the injury primarily

reflects the consequence of the act of the driver. It does not, by

itself, establish the mental element attributable to the passenger.



16.         Another important circumstance that needs to be taken

into consideration is the completion of the investigation. The

vehicle has already been seized and the charge sheet has already

been filed. The applicant has continued to be in custody since 25 th

March, 2026 and is stated to have no criminal antecedents. His

further custodial interrogation is not required. The apprehension

of influencing the injured or the eye-witnesses can be addressed by

imposing appropriate conditions.



17.         In these circumstances, without expressing any final

opinion on the applicability of Sections 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, a

case for releasing the applicant is made out. Hence, the following

order :

                               ORDER

(i)    The Bail Application is allowed.


(ii)   The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.197 of
       2026, registered with Bidkin Police Station, Chhatrapati
       Sambhajinagar (Rural) for the offences punishable under
       Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
                            -9-
                                                 40.BA-1364-2026

Sanhita, 2023, 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 police station
      on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m.
      to 02:00 p.m. till framing of charge and thereafter shall
      regularly attend each and every effective date before
      the trial court.


b)    The applicant shall not enter the village/locality in
      which the informant ordinarily resides, except for
      attending the proceedings before the Trial Court or
      reporting to the Investigating Agency, for a period of
      three months from the date of his release or till framing
      of charge, whichever is earlier. Before his release, he
      shall furnish to the Investigating Officer and the Trial
      Court the address at which he will reside during the
      said period and his mobile number, and shall intimate
      any change thereof.


c)    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.


d)    The applicant shall not leave India without prior
      permission of the trial Court and, if they possess
      passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court
      within seven days of their release.
                                     -10-
                                                            40.BA-1364-2026




          e)   The applicant shall not involve themselves 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 observations in this order are prima facie and
               confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial
               Court shall decide the case independently on the
               evidence led before it.


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



                                            (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                   JUDGE




Tandale