Bombay High Court
VISHAL BABASAHEB KOLPE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court granted regular bail to Haribhau Bhaurao Kolpe, Sagar Babasaheb Kolpe and Machindra @ Devidas Rakhma Kolpe, while dismissing Vishal Babasaheb Kolpe’s application as withdrawn.
Summary
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) considered bail applications of four accused in a case of assault with iron rods, wooden sticks and other weapons under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged a coordinated attack on the informant’s family causing both simple and grievous injuries, with two co‑accused already on anticipatory bail and two absconding. The defence highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements and argued that the injuries attributable to the three applicants were largely simple, invoking the principle of parity with co‑accused who had been released. After examining a detailed injury chart, the court found no clear link between the grievous injuries and the three applicants and noted that the investigation was complete and a charge‑sheet filed. Consequently, the court dismissed Vishal Babasaheb Kolpe’s application as withdrawn and granted regular bail to Haribhau Bhaurao Kolpe, Sagar Babasaheb Kolpe and Machindra @ Devidas Rakhma Kolpe subject to stringent conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused pending trial under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the principle of parity with co‑accused on anticipatory bail applies to the present applicants.
- Whether the nature and extent of injuries attributable to each accused justify denial of bail.
- Impact of two co‑accused being absconding on the grant of bail to the remaining accused.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 118(1), 119(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- regular bail
- anticipatory bail
- parity principle
- assault
- grievous injury
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45752
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1388 OF 2026
Haribhau Bhaurao Kolpe ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1393 OF 2026
1. Vishal Babasaheb Kolpe
2. Sagar Babasaheb Kolpe
3. Machindra Rakhma Kolpe
@ Devidas Rakhma Kolpe ..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
....
Ms. R.S. Kulkarni a/w Mr. A.R. Kachole, Advocates for applicants
Ms. A.S. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent - State
....
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for
State.
2. The applicants have preferred the present applications seeking
regular bail in connection with Crime No. 61 of 2026 registered with
Kopergaon Gramin Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar dated 18th February, 2026
1 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 119(1), 189(2),
190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. In all there are eights accused persons added in the said crime out
of which four accused / applicants are before this Court, who came to be
arrested on 10th April, 2026 (Applicants – Vishal, Sagar and Machindra @
Devidas), as far as applicant – Haribhau is concerned, he came to be arrested
on 06th June, 2026.
4. At the outset, after completion of hearing this Court showed its
disinclination to grant bail to Applicant – Vishal Babasaheb Kolpe, and
therefore upon instructions, learned counsel for the applicants seeks
permission to withdraw the application to his extent with liberty to file fresh
bail application after the charges are framed by the trial Court.
5. Permission is granted. Criminal Application No. 1393 of 2026
stands dismissed as withdrawn to the extent of Applicant No.1 – Vishal
Babasaheb Kolpe, with liberty to file fresh bail application after a period of
one year from today or from the date of framing of charges, whichever is
earlier.
6. The prosecution story in brief is that there seems to be a prior
enmity between the complainant’s family and the accused persons. It is
2 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
alleged that on 17th February, 2026 when a woman relative of informant was
washing clothes outside the house near the road, at that time accused – Vishal
Kolpe whistled addressing to her, and therefore, there was a quarrel between
Vishal and the informant’s relatives. Accused - Vishal was also slapped by
Meera, who is relative of the informant and they have also proceeded to lodge
a police complaint at Kopergaon. On subsequent day i.e. on 18 th February,
2026 at about 09:30 in the morning it is alleged that all the eight accused
persons forcibly entered into the house of the informant with iron rod and
wooden stick and started assaulting the informant as well as the other family
members of the informant. During the said assault, the informant alongwith
other family members sustained simple as well as grievous injuries, which
includes fracture and thereafter causing destruction to the other movable and
immovable properties of the informant. The accused persons left the spot.
The informant and the injured persons were taken to the hospital for medical
treatment and accordingly injury certificates have been issued narrating the
nature of injuries sustained by each of the injured. The F.I.R. came to be
registered and the investigation thus proceeded and as on date the charge-
sheet has been filed against present four applicants.
7. Learned A.P.P., at the outset, submits that there are in all eight
accused persons, out of which accused viz. Namdeo Shivaji Kolpe and Sanjay
Bapu Kolpe have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, while two other
persons viz. Satish Bapu Kolpe and Babasaheb Kolpe are absconding and have
3 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
not been available for investigation. Their anticipatory bail application has
been rejected and she has no instructions whether either of them have
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the fact remains that they
are unavailable for the purpose of investigation.
8. The investigation, as far as present four applicants are considered,
is completed and the charge-sheet is filed in which the statement of several
eye witnesses as well as the injured witnesses have been recorded.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the version given by
the informant as well as of the injured witnesses do not match with each
other and there are several discrepancies and omissions as far as prosecution
story is considered. She submits that the allegations pertaining to each of the
individual accused person should be looked from an angle of finding out
whether all of them are involved in the assault to each of the injured. She
submits that except accused – Vishal, the role attributed to other applicants of
assault are not pertaining to the injuries of serious and grievous nature, but
the injuries are simple in nature. Taking into consideration that it was a
cumulative assault at the instance of all the accused persons, granting
anticipatory bail to co-accused - Namdeo Shivaji Kolpe and Sanjay Bapu
Kolpe becomes relevant. She argues that the role attributed to Namdeo and
Sanjay is para-materia to the role attributed to the accused – Haribhau, Sagar
and Machindra @ Devidas. Thus, by applying the law of parity, these
4 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
applicants, who are in custody since April 2026, deserves to be released on
bail.
10. Learned A.P.P., however vehemently argued and opposed the
present application. She submits that the role attributed to Namdeo and
Sanjay should distinct to the present applicants. The present applicants are
involved in the assault to each and every injured witness including the
informant. The nature of injuries may differ but the fact remains that few of
the injured witnesses were brutally attacked and assaulted, thereby causing
grievous and serious injuries, such as fracture. The nature and manner in
which the entire offence has taken place shows that the applicants have no
fear of law. The period they have undergone is not proportionate to the
offence that has been alleged against them and the role that has been
attributed. Taking into consideration that two accused persons are still
absconding and they are not available for investigation, release of present
applicant on bail will hamper the progress of investigation. She, therefore,
prays that the application be rejected.
11. I have heard the submissions of both the learned counsel and have
gone through the entire charge-sheet that has been placed before me. No
doubt, the manner in which the assault has been caused and the entire
incident that has taken place narrates and satisfies that the applicants
themselves by preparation have reached the spot of incident, entered into the
5 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
residential house of the informant and have brutally assaulted each and every
family member, including the women and the house with weapons like iron
rods, wooden stick and plastic stick. The injuries that have been sustained by
each of the applicants corroborates the allegations that are levelled by the
informant and other injures witnesses in their respective statements. Thus,
there is no doubt in my mind that the alleged incident has prima facie taken
place and his supported by several statements and the injured certificates.
Still the fact remains that the application that is being considered is an
application for grant of regular bail pending trial. Taking into consideration
the individual role that has been assigned to the present applicants, following
chart will assist to narrate as to each applicant is involved in the assault and
causing of inflicting injuries on each of the injured witnesses :-
Alleged Assault Injury Certificate
Alleged Victim Alleged Assailant Weapon
on body parts description
Page No.59
Namdev (ABA Granted) Calf’s of both legs Abrasion – Right Leg
Dnyaneshwar (simple)
Devidas @ Machindra Iron Rod Back CLW – Right Leg (simple)
Pagar
Vishal Stick Both Hands CLW – Left Leg (simple)
(Complainant)
Satish (absconding) Spine Tenderness on lower
back (simple)
Babasaheb (absconding) Ribs Page No.58
Vishal Left Leg Knee CLW – Left frontal
Iron Rod,
Dadasaheb Sagar Left Shoulder region (simple)
Wooden Stick
Pagar (Father) Satish (absconding) Head above Left Fracure on a acromial
Plastic Stick
Haribhau Eye end of left clavicle
Devidas @ Machindra Back (Grievous)
Page No. 54
CLW – Scalp left side
(simple)
Ranganath Satish (absconding) Head
Pagar Babasaheb (absconding) Iron Rod Left Hand Palm CLW – Left hand dorsum
(simple)
(Grand Father) Namdev (ABA Granted) Both Knees Fracture on a acromial
end of right clavicle
(Grievous)
6 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
Page No.53
Contusions – Forearms
& Legs (simple)
Back Tenderness – Arms &
Rajendra Pagar Devidas @ Machindra Iron Rod
Both Hands Legs (simple)
(Uncle) Sanjay (ABA Granted) Wooden Stick
Leg Fracture of left clavicle
shaft (Grievous)
Dislocation of left
middle finger (Grievous)
Stick
Snatched Leg Page No.56
Shobhabai
Vishal Gold Back Tenderness Contusion
Pagar (Mother)
Mangalsutra Private Part on Left Thigh (simple)
(5 Gm.)
Stick
Left Shoulder Page No.57
Meera Pagar Snatched
Vishal Right Hand Tenderness on Upper
(sister-in-law) Gold Chain (1
Private Part Limb Chest (simple)
Gm.)
Vishal
Babasaheb (absconding) Iron Rod Page No.55
Vaishali Pagar Left Hand
Sagar Wooden Stick Tenderness over Left
(Aunt) Thigh
Satish (absconding) Plastic Stick Shoulder (simple)
Devidas @ Machindra
12. Perusal of the aforesaid chart suggests that the present applicants
have been involved in assaulting Dnayneshwar Pagar (informant), Dadasaheb
Pagar (father of informant), Ranganath Pagar (grand-father of informant),
Rajendra Pagar (uncle of informant), Shobhabai Pagar (mother of informant),
Meera Pagar (sister-in-law of informant) and Vaishali Pagar (aunt of
informant). Out of these injured witnesses, the injuries sustained by
Ranganath Pagar, though grievous in nature, are not attributed to either of
the applicants. Even the injuries caused to Shobhabai and Meer are not
attributed to the present applicants, but the same has been attributed to the
applicant (accused) – Vishal, whose application has been dismissed. Thus,
the injuries which are now attributed to the present applicants pertains to the
7 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
complainant, which are simple in nature. The injuries caused to Vaishali are
simple in nature. The only grievous injury that has been sustained by father
of the informant – Dadasaheb is attributed to the applicants and is serious and
grievous in nature. The injury is to the acromial end of left clavicle and it is
fracture injury. The narration of prosecution story by the informant himself
suggests that accused – Vishal was aggressor and one single injury that has
been caused cannot, therefore, be attributed to all other three applicants
before this Court. The exact injury which has been caused by each of the
applicants will be a matter of evidence in which the prosecution will have to
place material to assign the particular injury to one particular accused. At this
stage, it is not possible to infer that the fracture injury is caused by either of
the applicants. Similarly, the injury which has been termed as grievous and
fracture injury to the left clavicle shaft and dislocation of left middle finger
caused to the injured witness – Rajendra is specifically attributed to applicant
– Machindra @ Devidas and co-accused – Sanjay. The co-accused – Sanjay, as
mentioned above has already been released on anticipatory bail, and
therefore, applicant – Machindra @ Devidas also deserves parity to this
aspect.
13. Thus, taking into consideration the overall injuries that has been
sustained by the injured witnesses including the informant and the nature of
injuries and the role attributed to each of the present applicants, I am of the
opinion that the applicants, who have been in custody since 10 th April, 2026
8 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
and 06th June, 2026 are concerned and the fact that investigation pertaining
to these applicants is completed and charge-sheet is filed, present applications
can be allowed and the applicants can be set at liberty by granting bail with
certain stringent conditions.
14. In the above circumstances, the applications stand allowed. Hence
the following order :-
ORDER
(i) Bail Application No. 1393 of 2026 stands disposed of as
withdrawn to the extent of Vishal Babasaheb Kolpe.
(ii) The applicants – Haribhau Bhaurao Kolpe, Sagar Babasaheb
Kolpe and Machindra @ Devidas Rakhma Kolpe shall be
released on bail in Crime No. 61 of 2026 registered with
Kopergaon Gramin Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar dated
18th February, 2026 for the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2),118(1),119(1),189(2),190,191(2),191(3),
324(4), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) each with one or two solvent surety in
the like amount, subject to the following conditions -
a) The applicants shall attend the trial Court on every
date fixed, unless their attendance is specifically
exempted.
b) Applicants - Haribhau Bhaurao Kolpe and Machindra @
Devidas Rakhma Kolpe shall not enter Kopergaon
9 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
Taluka, except for attending the trial and attending
Kopargaon Rural Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar once
in a month i.e. on first Monday of every month.
c) Applicant - Sagar Babasaheb Kolpe shall attend
Kopargaon Rural Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar twice
in a month i.e. on first and last Monday of every
month.
d) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact,
threaten, induce or influence the informant or any
prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
e) The applicants shall furnish their current residential
addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating
Officer and the trial Court within seven days of release,
intimate any change forthwith, and attend the
Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further
investigation is required.
f) The applicants 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.
g) The applicants shall not involve themselves in any
offence of a similar nature while on bail.
h) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.
10 / 11
933-BA-1388-26+1.odt
(iii) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to
the decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall
decide the case on the evidence led before it.
(iv) The Bail Applications are disposed of in the above terms.
( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. )
SSD
11 / 11
Checking your session…