RAMESHWAR SUKHDEV RAJALE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:40464
                                             1                      66BA1608.2026.odt

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               66 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1608 OF 2026

               1] Rameshwar Sukhdev Rajale
               2] Vishal Raosaheb Pawar                                ...Applicants

                     VERSUS

               The State Of Maharashtra And Another                    ...Respondents
                                                 ...
               Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke - Advocate for Applicants
               Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh - APP for the State
                                                 ...

                                        CORAM :     HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                        DATED :     31ST AUGUST, 2026

               ORAL ORDER : -

               1.          Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the

               learned APP for the State, and with their assistance, perused the entire

               charge-sheet.



               2.          By the present Application under Section 483 of the

               Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants are seeking

               regular bail in connection with Crime No. 0639 of 2025, dated

               24.10.2025, registered with Bidkin Police Station, District Chhatrapati

               Sambhajinagar Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections

               103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 45 and 51 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

               2023. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 23.10.2025,

               and the said Crime was registered on 24.10.2025.
                              2                         66BA1608.2026.odt

3.          The learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that the

names of the present Applicants were mentioned as absconding in the

initial charge-sheet and, therefore, the charge-sheet under Section 335

of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was filed against the present

Applicants. However, the present Applicants came to be arrested on

15.03.2026 and 17.03.2026, respectively. Thereafter, a supplementary

charge-sheet was filed against the present Applicants on 08.06.2026.



4.          The prosecution case, in brief, is that there exists a political

rivalry between two groups in the village. It is alleged that the

immediate cause of the occurrence was a dispute concerning the

installation of Diwali greeting banners displayed by members of both

groups. It is alleged that, on 22.10.2025, accused Rushikesh made a

threatening telephonic call, and on the following night, an unlawful

assembly consisting of several persons, some of whom were armed with

iron rods, pipes and wooden sticks, gathered at the spot of the incident.

During the ensuing assault, the deceased Tanmay, who was the nephew

of the Informant, was assaulted by some of the accused persons.

According to the prosecution, after investigation, it was revealed that,

the assault on the deceased Tanmay was at the instance of accused

Rahul Thange, who caught hold of Tanmany, whereas, Accused

Rushikesh, Pradeep Thange and Sagar Thange assaulted him with kicks

and fist blows and wooden sticks. The specific fatal assault is attributed
                              3                        66BA1608.2026.odt

to accused Santosh Thange, who is alleged to have struck deceased

Tanmay on the head with an iron rod, as a result of which Tanmay

succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution alleges that all the accused

persons were members of an unlawful assembly and shared a common

object to commit the present offence. The learned Counsel for the

Applicants principally submits that the present bail application is on the

ground of parity. He argues that neither of the present Applicants is

named in the FIR. Though their names find mention in the gist of the

charge-sheet filed by the Prosecution, no specific overt act has been

attributed to the present Applicants. Thus, taking into consideration the

entire prosecution record consisting of first charge-sheet and even

second charge-sheet, at the most, one can say that, the present

applicants were merely part of the unlawful assembly.         He further

submitted that, during the course of investigation, the Informant and

several witnesses, who were acquainted with the persons from the

village, did not attribute any specific role to the present Applicants in

the assault upon deceased Tanmay. A few of the witnesses have

identified the present Applicants as being members of the unlawful

assembly; however, they have made specific allegations of assault

against the other co-accused persons and not against the present

Applicants. The learned Advocate for the Applicants invited my attention

to the fact that accused Pradeep Thange and Sagar Thange, who were

named from the inception and against whom specific roles of assaulting
                              4                        66BA1608.2026.odt

the deceased have been attributed, have already been released on bail. It

is further argued that, at the highest, the role attributed to the present

Applicants is that of being present as members of the larger assembly.



5.          While making submissions in respect of Applicant No. 1, the

learned Advocate submits that his name does not find mention in the

statements of some of the principal eye-witnesses, and no overt act of

assault has been attributed to him. As far as Applicant No. 2 is

concerned, though his presence is referred to by some of the witnesses,

no assault upon the deceased has been attributed to him. He submits

that only one witness, namely, Amol Gadhe, states that when he

attempted to intervene, Applicant No. 2 asked him to stay away and not

to intervene. The learned Advocate further points out that several

witnesses, including Bharat Chaudhari and Prathamesh Kakade, do not

name either of the Applicants, whereas the statements specifically

referring to the Applicants came to be recorded considerably after the

occurrence. These statements were recorded almost one month after the

date of the incident. It is, therefore, submitted that, particularly when

the persons who have been attributed a direct role in the assault have

been enlarged on bail, the continued detention of the present Applicants

would be unjustified. He, therefore, prays that the Applicants be

released on bail, subject to any stringent conditions that may be

imposed.
                               5                        66BA1608.2026.odt

6.           The learned APP opposes the present application. She

submits that this was not an isolated assault by one or two persons, but

a concerted attack by an unlawful assembly consisting of 25–30 persons,

several of whom were armed with dangerous weapons. The Applicants

have been identified by the witnesses as being part of the said assembly.

It is further submitted that Applicant No. 2, in fact, played a role in the

actual assault and threatened the witness who attempted to intervene in

the assault. Thus, the presence of the present Applicants in the unlawful

assembly clearly establishes that they shared the common object of

committing the offence. The learned APP further points out that

Applicant No. 2 has a criminal antecedent involving an offence

punishable under Section 326 of the IPC in the year 2024. She,

therefore, submits that, taking into consideration the gravity and

seriousness of the offence, the nature of the offence, and the nature of

the assembly, the present Applicants do not deserve to be released on

bail.



7.           I have considered the rival submissions and have also gone

through the entire material placed on record. There can be no dispute as

to the seriousness of the occurrence. It is a matter of record that a young

person has lost his life in an assault allegedly committed by a large

group. Equally, while considering an application for bail in a case

involving several accused, the Court is required to examine the material
                              6                        66BA1608.2026.odt

attributed to the particular applicant and cannot decide the application

merely on the basis of the gravity of the offence in the abstract. The

principle of parity also cannot be applied mechanically. What is material

is whether the role attributed to the applicant is comparable to or less

serious than that attributed to the co-accused who have already been

enlarged on bail. Viewed from this perspective, the circumstance that

assumes significance in the present case is that co-accused Pradeep

Thange and Sagar Thange have already been released on bail. The

prosecution alleges a specific and direct role in the assault on the

deceased, Tanmay, against the co-accused. The material presently placed

against the present applicants does not place either of them on a higher

footing than the said co-accused.


8.          Neither of the applicants is named in the FIR. Insofar as

Applicant No. 1 is concerned, no specific act of assault upon the

deceased is attributed to him. His name appears in some of the

statements of the witnesses as a person forming part of the gathering.

Significantly, the other eyewitnesses relied upon by the prosecution do

not name the present Applicant No. 1. Thus, not all the eyewitnesses

have named the present Applicant No. 1 and, admittedly, none of the

eyewitnesses attributes any role to him that can be said to be of a higher

footing than the role attributed to the accused who have already been

released on bail. Coupled with this is the fact that Applicant No. 1 has

no criminal antecedents, save and except the present crime.
                               7                        66BA1608.2026.odt




9.           The material against Applicant No. 2 is somewhat more

specific, inasmuch as his presence is referred to by certain witness.

Witness Amol Gadhe, in fact, goes a step further and attributes a specific

role to the present Applicant No. 2 by stating that, when the witness was

attempting to intervene in the fight, Applicant No. 2 caught hold of him

and threatened him not to get involved or intervened. However, even on

the basis of this material, Applicant No. 2 is not alleged to have

assaulted the deceased with any weapon or otherwise inflicted any

injury upon him. Some of the other eyewitnesses do not name him at all.

The effect of the allegation that Applicant No. 2 prevented intervention,

and whether such circumstance, considered along with the other

material on record, is sufficient to prima facie establish the prosecution's

allegation that he shared the common intention or common object, as

the case may be, are matters that will have to be determined at the stage

of trial. At this stage, however, the material attributed to Applicant No. 2

does not indicate any direct assault upon the deceased.



10.          Another circumstance which cannot be altogether ignored

at this stage is that the statements which specifically implicate the

present applicants in the occurrence were not recorded immediately

after the incident, but after a considerable interval. This circumstance is

not being treated as sufficient, by itself, to discard those statements. The
                                8                       66BA1608.2026.odt

truthfulness and evidentiary value of the statements are matters for trial.

Nevertheless, for the limited purpose of assessing the prima facie case

for bail, the delay assumes some relevance, particularly when the

applicants were not named in the FIR and when other witnesses do not

consistently name them. Even this Court, while granting anticipatory

bail and regular bail to some of the accused persons, has taken this fact

into consideration and held that the belatedly recorded statements do

not inspire confidence at this stage.



11.          The prosecution is justified in contending that, where an

offence is committed by members of an unlawful assembly in

prosecution of its common object, the absence of an individual role

attributed to an accused in the infliction of injury is not, by itself,

decisive. However, that proposition does not mean that every person

alleged to have been present in a large assembly must necessarily

remain behind bars or in custody until the conclusion of the trial,

irrespective of the quality of the material concerning his membership,

participation, and role. At the stage of bail, the Court is required to

make a limited assessment of these circumstances without recording

findings that may affect the trial.



12.          Furthermore, the investigation is complete and the charge-

sheet has been filed. The applicants have been in custody since
                                                              9                      66BA1608.2026.odt

                             15.03.2026 and 17.03.2026, respectively. Having regard to the quality of

                             the material collected by the prosecution against the present applicants,

                             the period of custody already undergone by the applicants appears to be

                             proportionate for the purpose of considering their applications for grant

                             of bail. Hence, I pass the following order:

                                                                  ORDER

                                      [i]    The Application is allowed.

                                      [ii]   The Applicants be released on bail in connection with Crime
                                             No. 0639 of 2025 dated 24.10.2025 registered with Bidkin
                                             Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural),
                                             for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2),
                                             190, 191(2), 45, 51 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on
                                             their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
                                             Fifty Thousand) each, with one solvent surety in the like
                                             amount on the following conditions.

                                             a]       The applicants shall attend Bidkin Police Station,
                                                      District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural), on
                                                      first Monday of every month.

                                             b]       The Applicants shall not tamper with the
                                                      prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

                             13.             The Application stands disposed of.



                                                                       [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]
                                                                                JUDGE

                             SG Punde



Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/09/2026 14:31:16