Bombay High Court
SHIVSHANKAR RAMESH MAHATOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that, given the applicant’s limited participation, lack of a distinct fatal blow, and the release of a co‑accused, bail should be granted.
Summary
The applicant, Shivshankar Ramesh Mahato, sought regular bail in a case (Crime No. 87 of 2026) arising from a violent incident at Komal Farsan Mart Hotel where the deceased, under the influence of alcohol and armed with a hammer, assaulted patrons and later died from head injuries. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, identified by a red shirt in video footage, participated in bringing the deceased down, contributing to the assault that led to the fatal injury. The defence argued that the incident was not premeditated, the applicant did not wield a weapon, and no specific fatal blow could be attributed to him; they also highlighted his clean record and the bail of a co‑accused. The court examined the video, eyewitness statements, and medical evidence, noting conflicting accounts of how the head injury occurred and the applicant’s limited role. Concluding that the material did not justify continued pre‑trial detention, the court granted bail with conditions, emphasizing that the final determination of guilt rests with the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant’s participation, as shown in video evidence, attracts liability under Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the applicant’s role justifies denial of bail despite the seriousness of the charge.
- Whether the existence of a common object and unlawful assembly can be established against the applicant.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 103
- Section 190
- unlawful assembly
- pre‑trial detention
- video evidence
- accidental death
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42610
-1-
56-BA-1412-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1412 OF 2026
SHIVSHANKAR RAMESH MAHATO
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Sakshi S. Dushing h/f. Mr. Sanjay B.
Dushing
APP for Respondent - State : Mr. K. K. Naik
.....
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER 2026
PER COURT :
1. The present application is filed by the applicant seeking
regular bail in connection with Crime No. 87 of 2026 registered
with Ahilyanagar Taluka Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar. The
offences alleged against the present applicant are mainly
punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS. The applicant came to
be arrested on 12th February, 2026, and since then, he has been in
custody.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6th March
2025, at about 9:00 a.m., the deceased Mitthu Datt, while under
the influence of liquor and armed with an iron hammer, went to
Komal Farsan Mart Hotel, near the VRDE gate, at Arangaon. He
-2-
56-BA-1412-2026
allegedly damaged the glass counter and other articles in the hotel
and threatened the persons present there. The material collected
during the investigation further shows that the deceased assaulted
one Dattatrey Garad and elderly customer who had arrived there
with his wife, by giving him a hammer blow on his head, and also
damaged his motorcycle. Thereafter, the deceased went towards
his fabrication shop. The women and workers of the hotel had
already engaged in an altercation. It is alleged that the deceased
was caught, brought down and assaulted by the accused persons.
He sustained head injuries and was initially admitted to Pacific
Super Speciality Hospital at Aliyanagar. He was subsequently
shifted to Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, by his relatives, where
he died during treatment on 23rd March, 2025. The post-mortem
report records the cause of death as complications following head
injury. Initially, the prosecution report suggests that an accidental
death bearing A.D. No. 39 of 2025 was registered on 29th March
2025. The enquiry was subsequently transferred to the Police
Inspector, Supa Police Station. During the course of the enquiry,
two video clips recorded on a mobile phone were secured. On the
basis of the statements of the witnesses, the video clips and the
medical material, the present crime came to be registered on 11 th
February, 2026 against the owner of the hotel, accused Javed
Attar and three workers of the establishment. The present
-3-
56-BA-1412-2026
applicant was not named in the FIR, but is alleged to be the person
wearing a red shirt in the video recording.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
occurrence was neither premeditated nor the result of any
previous enmity. The deceased himself initiated the incident by
damaging the property and indiscriminately threatening and
assaulting persons with the hammer. The persons present there
attempted to disarm and restrain him. It was submitted that no
weapon is attributed to the applicant and there is no allegation that
he delivered any blow on the head or any vital part of the deceased.
The role emerging from the video recording is that the applicant
and another worker brought the deceased down while the hammer
was being taken away from him.
4. Attention was invited to the statement of Yogesh
Shinde, the brother-in-law of the deceased, according to whom the
deceased slipped, his foot got entangled near a tree enclosure, and
he fell from a cement slab covering the drain. It was further
submitted that co-accused Bhausaheb, the owner of the hotel, has
already been released on bail. The investigation is complete.
Nothing remains to be recovered from the applicant. He has no
criminal antecedents and his further detention is not necessary.
-4-
56-BA-1412-2026
5. Learned APP opposed the application and submitted
that the live video and the panchnama show the active
participation of the applicant. The applicant was wearing a red-
coloured T-shirt and along with another worker, was seen bringing
the deceased down. Thereafter, the deceased was assaulted. Mr.
Vinod Sonawane, who is an eyewitness and who recorded the video
of the entire incident, has stated that two or three persons
assaulted the deceased after he was brought down. The medical
material shows that the deceased sustained a serious head injury
and ultimately died as a consequence thereof. The learned APP,
therefore, submitted that the applicant was a member of the
unlawful assembly and having referred to Section 190 of the BNS,
submitted that the absence of an individual overt act would not
exonerate him. He therefore prayed for rejection of the application.
6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
have also gone through the entire investigation material. The
material at the present stage of bail is being considered for a very
limited purpose. Undoubtedly, the video recording and the
statements relied upon by the prosecution indicate that the
presence and participation of the applicant in the occurrence
cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that his name was not
-5-
56-BA-1412-2026
mentioned in the FIR. At the same time, the nature and degree of
his participation, the circumstances in which the incident has
taken place, and the material concerning the fatal injury requires
consideration.
7. Prima facie, the incident was not planned. The material
collected by the prosecution itself shows that the deceased arrived
armed with a hammer, damaged the furniture and has also
threatened the persons present, and inflicted a hammer blow on
the head of an unrelated elderly person. The accused persons
thereafter followed the deceased and attempted to take the
hammer away from him. The video recording attributes to the
present applicant, who is identified by the red shirt that he was
wearing, the act of joining another worker in bringing the deceased
down is also one of the circumstance that can be attributed to the
present applicant. No weapon is seen in the hand of the present
applicant or in any case, no specific blow on the head or any other
vital part is attributed to the present applicant.
8. There are different versions concerning how the head
injury was sustained. The eye-witness Vinod Sonawane states that
the deceased was brought down and assaulted by two or three
persons. On the other hand Yogesh Shinde, who is related to the
-6-
56-BA-1412-2026
deceased and who claims to have witnessed the occurrence, stated
during the accidental death enquiry that, while the hammer was
being snatched, the deceased’s foot got entangled near the tree
enclosure and he fell on the cement slab covering the drain. He
thereafter stated that he had no complaint against anyone
concerning the death. The medical evidence establishes a serious
head injury and is causally connected with the death. However,
whether that injury was caused by a direct act of assault or by the
deceased being brought down, or by an accidental fall during the
scuffle is a matter which will have to be determined at the time of
trial. A fall on a cement surface would itself involve blunt force. At
this stage, the medical material does not attribute the fatal injury
to any identified act of the present applicant. Thus, the
applicability of Section 190 of the BNS and the existence and scope
of the alleged common object will necessarily be examined at the
time of trial. Nevertheless, for the limited purpose of bail, the
circumstances preceding the occurrence and the sudden nature of
the episode along with the absence of any weapon with the
applicant, and the absence of a distinct fatal blow attributed to the
present applicant are material considerations which can be taken
while deciding the application for bail.
9. The co-accused Bahusaheb Nangare, who is the owner
-7-
56-BA-1412-2026
of the hotel and who is also shown in the video as having
participated in the occurrence, has been released on bail by the
learned Sessions Court on 29th May 2026. Though, parity cannot be
applied mechanically and the role of every accused has to be
separately examined, the release of the co-accused is however, a
relevant circumstance. Even on an independent assessment, the
role attributed to the present applicant does not justify his
continued pre-trial detention after completion of the investigation.
10. The applicant is in custody since 12 th February, 2026.
The charge-sheet has already been filed and his further custodial
interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from
him. He has no criminal antecedents. The possibility of his
absconding or interfering with the evidence can adequately be
addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.
11. Another aspect that requires consideration is that the
applicant is a permanent resident of the State of Bihar and had
come to Ahilyanagar only for the purpose of employment. It is
submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that the
applicant’s relatives are also residing in Ahilyanagar and have
premises on rent. Though the applicant is not found to be a
permanent resident of Ahilyanagar or a domicile of the State of
-8-
56-BA-1412-2026
Maharashtra, appropriate conditions can still be imposed to secure
his presence at the time of trial.
12. Thus, taking into consideration the seriousness of the
charge and the material against the present applicant, I am
inclined to allow the present application. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
(i) The Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 87 of
2026 registered with Ahilyanagar Taluka Police Station, Dist.
Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections
103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2) and 191(3) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two local
solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to the following
conditions :
a) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station
on the first Monday and the third Monday of every
month between 10:00 a.m. and 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, directly or indirectly, contact,
threaten, induce or influence the informant or any
prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
-9-
56-BA-1412-2026
c) The applicant shall furnish their current residential
address and mobile number 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.
d) The applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the trial Court and shall
surrender his passport, if any, before the trial Court.
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 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
Checking your session…