ROHIT DINKAR YADAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:45940
                                                -1-
                                                                      955-BA-1552-2026

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1552 OF 2026

                                    ROHIT DINKAR YADAV
                                           VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                              .....
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe
              APP for Respondent - State : Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh
                                              .....

                                          CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                          DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.          Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

              A.P.P. for the State. With the assistance of both learned counsel, I

              have also perused the copy of the charge-sheet annexed to the

              present application.



              2.          The present applicant seeks regular bail in connection

              with C.R. No. 320 of 2026, dated 2nd May, 2026. The present

              applicant came to be arrested on 2 nd May, 2026 and since then he

              is in custody.



              3.          At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant

              submits that in all there are six accused persons, out of which, one

              accused   by     name   Dinkar   is     granted   ad-interim   relief   in

              anticipatory bail by this Court. Accused Nos.4 and 5, who are
                                 -2-
                                                      955-BA-1552-2026

women, have already been released on bail. Accused No.6 is also

released on bail by the learned Sessions Court at Shrirampur.



4.         The prosecution story, in brief, is that there is a civil

dispute over agricultural lands and house property between the

family of the applicant and the informant. The litigation has

travelled all the way from the Trial Court to the Hon’ble Apex

Court and there are several orders passed. It is alleged in the FIR

that the present applicant along with his friends, who are co-

accused in the present offence, had approached the informant and

offered him to settle the entire civil dispute. It is alleged that the

applicant removed a pistol and pointed it at the informant’s head

and then carried him forcibly to one factory. It is further alleged

that, within the premises of the said factory, the informant was

brutally assaulted by the present applicant and the other co-

accused persons with the aid of weapons such as belt and iron rod

as well as by fists and blows. The informant has sustained injuries.

As far as, the present applicant is concerned, the allegations

against him in the entire FIR is, (i) he approached the informant

and offered him the talks for settlement; (ii) he pointed a gun on

the head of the informant with the help of the other co-accused

persons and took him to the factory premises; and (iii) the present

applicant with the aid of iron rod assaulted the informant on both
                                   -3-
                                                       955-BA-1552-2026

legs and calves. The other co-accused persons also assaulted the

informant. Co-accused Dinkar, who has been granted ad-interim

relief in anticipatory bail, is alleged to have assaulted the

informant with the help of belt on his back and toe. The other

accused Appasaheb Gaware           is alleged to have assaulted the

informant on his legs, neck and back with the help of wooden stick.

The other two ladies, who were present, allegedly assaulted with

kicks and fists and also hurled abuses to the informant. All the

accused persons alleged to have given threat of life to the

informant and also warned him that, if he did not vacate the house

property today itself, then his entire family would be murdered.

When the informant agreed to vacate the house, he was then taken

back and was dropped near his residential house.



5.            As the informant had sustained injuries due to the

alleged assault, he was taken to the hospital, where his statement

was recorded by the police and the present FIR came to be

registered.



6.            Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially,

the offence was registered under Sections 137(2), 118(2), 118(1)

352, 351(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 read with Sections 3

and 25 of the Arms Act. However, a day later, the offence under
                                 -4-
                                                      955-BA-1552-2026

Section 109 of the BNS has been added. He submits that the

ingredients of Section 109 of BNS are attributed to the present

offence for the simple reason that the injury certificate which is

forming part of the charge-sheet mentions all the injuries as

abrasions and bruises. He argues that role that has been assigned

to the present applicant pertains to an assault on the legs and

calves, which cannot be said to be a vital parts of the body. He

submits that the applicant has been arrested on 2 nd May, 2026 and

since then he is in custody. He submits that the accused, who has

assaulted the foot of informant, where the medical injury makes a

reference to the X-ray opinion that there is a fracture to the frontal

toe is caused by accused Dinkar, who has been granted ad-interim

relief in anticipatory bail. Accused No.6 is also released on bail,

while other two accused persons, who are ladies, have also been

granted bail. He thus submits that, the application be allowed and

the applicant be enlarged on bail.



7.         Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the bail

application and submits that there is direct and substantial role

attributed to the present applicant. She argues that the entire

offence has been initiated at the instance of the present applicant

and the co-accused persons are the friends of present applicant.

The First Information Report specifically describes the threat given
                                 -5-
                                                      955-BA-1552-2026

to the informant with the aid of a pistol by the present applicant

and he was forcibly removed and then assaulted with an iron rod

by the present applicant. She also submits that there is an attempt

of strangulating the informant at the hands of the present

applicant. She submits that the medical evidence shows multiple

injuries including grievous injuries. In respect of the dispute

between the parties over the house property and civil proceedings

does not lessen the gravity and the criminal liability of the alleged

offence against the present applicant. She further submits that the

applicant is a resident of the same village where the informant and

his family members are residing. In that eventuality, there is every

possibility that the applicant may threaten and pressurize the

informant and his family members and the other witnesses in the

offence. She, thus, requests that the application be rejected.



8.         Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, the submission

pertaining to the allegations against the applicant are merely

general cannot be accepted. The informant attributes a distinct act

to the present applicant at different stages of the occurrence. It is

also not possible at this stage to discard the prosecution case

merely because a civil dispute is pending between the parties. Such

a dispute may furnish a reason for false implication, but it may
                                 -6-
                                                      955-BA-1552-2026

equally supply the background for the alleged coercion. The

respective claims concerning title, possession and the continuation

of the civil proceedings cannot be conclusively determined in the

present application. No observation in this order shall say to have

any effect on or bearing upon the said civil proceedings.



9.         Perusal of the medical certificate dated 17th May, 2026

records six injuries. These injuries comprises bruising on the back

and chest, bruising with multiple abrasions on the lower back on

the right side, bruising on the right side of the chest, bruising with

bluish-red discolouration on the right side of the abdomen and both

buttocks and swelling of the right foot. Injuries Nos.2, 4 and 6 are

termed grievous, the remaining injuries are marked as simple. A

fracture of the right foot is recorded in the radiological findings.

The medical material, therefore, cannot be reduced to a single

injury to the toe or be described as showing only simple injuries. At

the same time, the certificate records the injuries collectively. The

attribution of each injury to a particular act or assault, as well as

the medical basis for its classification will definitely require

examination at the time of trial. The objection that the certificate

loses its evidentiary value merely because it was issued by a

private hospital is misconceived. The another argument pertaining

to the police papers recording Section 109 of the BNS, which was
                                 -7-
                                                     955-BA-1552-2026

added on 3rd May, 2026, on the basis of the alleged allegation also

cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. Furthermore, the

submission of the learned Advocate as to whether Section 109 of

the BNS is applicable or not will need not be taken into

consideration at this stage, when this Court is considering the

application for bail.



10.         Nevertheless, the question presently is whether the

further detention of the applicant is necessary, in the facts of the

case, the allegations and the role attributed to the present

applicant, pending trial. It is a matter of record that the applicant

was arrested on 2nd May, 2026 and he has been in custody for

nearly five months. The investigation culminating in the charge-

sheet against the present applicant is complete. The informant’s

statement and the statements of all other material witnesses have

already been recorded. The medical documents and certificates

pertaining to the informant are also seized. Thus, the entire

investigation pertaining to the entire offence is completed. There

are no criminal antecedents against the present applicant and

there is also no possibility of the applicant being a flight risk. In

such circumstances, I am inclined to allow the application by

imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order :
                                       -8-
                                                                955-BA-1552-2026

                                  ORDER

(i)    The Bail Application is allowed.

(ii)   The applicant - Rohit Dinkar Yadav shall be released on bail
       in Crime No. 320 of 2026 registered with Shrirampur City
       Police   Station,    District    Ahilyanagar,      for    the   offences
       punishable under Sections 109, 137(2), 118(2), 118(1),
       189(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya
       Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms
       Act, on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
       Fifty Thousand only) with one or two 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.
             and 02:00 p.m. till framing of charge and thereafter
             shall regularly attend each and every effective date
             before the trial court, unless their attendance is
             specifically exempted.

       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
             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.
                                         -9-
                                                           955-BA-1552-2026



          d)    The applicant shall not leave India without prior
                permission of the Trial Court and, if he posses passport,
                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.


(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 independently on the evidence led before it.


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


                                               (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                      JUDGE




Tandale