Bombay High Court
TANVEER SIKANDAR BAGWANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The bail application is allowed, subject to stringent conditions, as continued detention is not necessary to secure the investigation.
Summary
The applicant, Tanveer Sikandar Bagwan, was arrested for allegedly assaulting members of another family with a chopper, causing injuries to the head, ear, and neck and a small intracranial haemorrhage. The prosecution contended that the applicant was the principal assailant and that his release could enable witness intimidation, especially since the accused reside in the same locality. The defence argued that the incident arose from a sudden altercation, the injuries were not grievous, the applicant has no prior criminal record, and the investigation is complete. The court noted that the seriousness of the alleged offence and the use of a deadly weapon preclude parity with co‑accused already on bail, but also observed that continued detention was unnecessary to secure the investigation. Considering the completed charge‑sheet, the applicant's custody since June, and the possibility of imposing restrictive conditions, the court decided to grant bail. The bail order includes a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, monthly police reporting, residence restrictions, and prohibitions against contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence. The decision balances the gravity of the charges with the principle that bail should not be denied merely because of the nature of the alleged offence when the investigation is concluded.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail disposition for an accused charged under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 115, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 involving alleged use of a deadly weapon and grievous injuries?
- Does the proximity of the accused to the victims and the risk of witness intimidation justify denial of bail?
- Can the completion of investigation and filing of charge‑sheet outweigh the seriousness of the alleged offences in granting bail?
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115, 118(1), 3(5), 351(3)
Subjects
- bail
- assault
- deadly weapon
- grievous hurt
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- witness intimidation
- charge-sheet
- restrictive conditions
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42966
RB41BA1611-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1611 of 2026
Tanveer Sikandar Bagwan ... Applicant
Age 23 years, Occu: Labor
R/o Dattanagar, Kopargaon
District Ahilyanagar
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Through Police Station Officer, Kopargaon
City Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar
.....
Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. S. V. Hange, APP for the Respondent State
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAONKAR, J.
DATE: 21st September, 2026
ORDER:-
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP
for the State. With the able assistance of the learned Advocates, I have
also perused the charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency in the
present application.
2. The present application is for regular bail by the applicant,
who is arraigned as accused in connection with Crime No. 205 of 2026
registered with Kopargaon Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) 115, 351(3), 3(5)
of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the evening of
1 of 6
RB41BA1611-26
15.04.2026, the informant Rehan Shaikh, his father Farooque and his
brother Ayan confronted the applicant over the suspected relations
with a woman in their family. An altercation took place between them
and the applicant alleged to have taken out a weapon called chopper
and stuck Farooque on the head, near the ear and neck. It is also
alleged that with the same weapon the applicant had also assaulted
and injured the witness Ayan when he tried to intervene. The other
two accused persons are alleged to have joined the applicant at the
time of assault and have used their fist and kicks. The FIR is registered
on 16.04.2026. The applicant came to be arrested on 01.06.2026 and
since then he is in custody. It is not disputed that the other two accused
persons are already released on bail.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that
the occurrence is sudden and the alleged incident has taken place due
to altercations and provocation that has been performed by the
complainant’s party. He argued that the applicant himself has
sustained serious injury and, therefore, his mother has lodged an FIR
No. 206 of 2026 in resect of the same incident against the member of
the informant's family. The learned counsel also points out the history
of assault by an unknown person recorded at the Farooque’s first
Hospital examination. His discharge, according to the applicant, is on
17.04.2026 after the treatment and therefore, the injuries, according to
him, cannot be said to be grievous or serious in nature and he has been
discharged within 24 hours. He further argues that the applicant is
2 of 6
RB41BA1611-26
not a hard-earned criminal and there are no criminal antecedents. The
charge-sheet has been filed and thus, investigation is completed. The
weapon has also been recovered. In such situation, the trial is not
likely to commence sooner and therefore, the application of the
applicant be considered and he be released on bail.
5. The learned APP appearing for the State opposes the
application by submitting that there is a specific role attributed to the
present applicant and othet witnesses. He argues that the applicant is
the main assailant in the alleged offence who has used a deadly
weapon and assaulted the injured Farooque on his head, neck and ear
which are said to be vital organs of the body. The weapon has also
been recovered during the investigation and the medical evidence
which are placed on record suggests that there are serious and grievous
injuries caused to the vital part of the body of the victim. He argues
that the CT scan examination discloses a small haemorrhage in the
Victim Farooque’s right cerebellum. He further submits that release of
two accused persons cannot be equated with the role that has been
attributed and performed by the present applicant. According to him,
this is not a case of parity and the role of the present applicant is
materially different from that of the other accused persons. He further
argues that the parties reside in the same locality and therefore, grant
of bail may expose the witnesses to the pressure of the present
applicant.
6. I have considered the record and also the argument that has
3 of 6
RB41BA1611-26
been advanced by the learned Advocates. The allegation against the
present applicant, no doubt, is serious and specific. The injury that has
been caused to Farooque cannot be described as superficial for the
reason that the medical material records wounds to the head, ear and
neck as well as a small intracranial haemorrhage. His discharge from
the Hospital on the following day does not by itself indicate either the
injury or the prosecution case. Equally, the history of the assault by an
unknown person in the first Hospital record cannot presently displace
the account of the witnesses who named the applicant. On the contrary,
the cross FIR registered about the same incident strengthens the case
that the incident has taken place between the applicant’s family and
the informant’s family. The question as to who was aggressor and who
prompted the entire incident will be a matter that will have to be tested
in trial. The cross FIR and the applicant’s treatment shows that the
persons from both the sides have sustained injuries in the same
occurrence. They do not establish, at this stage, who initiated the
violence or whether the applicant’s alleged use of chopper was justified.
Those questions including the nature of its intention require assessment
upon evidence. The bail order cannot evaluate these materials.
However, the fact remains that the use of chopper and the assault
caused by the present applicant specifically on the vital part of the
body does not give any kind of parity to the applicant between the
other two accused persons who are released on bail.
7. However, the fact remains that the investigation in the
4 of 6
RB41BA1611-26
present crime is complete and charge-sheet was filed on 10.07.2026
and the applicant has been in custody since 01.06.2026. Having regard
to this circumstance, the completed investigation and the stage of
proceedings, his continued detention is not necessary to secure the
investigation. The concern arising from the parties’ proximity can be
addressed by conditions restraining contact with the injured persons
and witnesses and also by putting restraint on the habitation of the
applicant within the vicinity where the witnesses reside. On an overall
assessment, the applicant may be released on bail. Hence, the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) The Applicant, in connection with Crime No. 205 of 2026
registered with Kopargaon Police Station, District Ahilyanagar,
for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1)
115, 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 be released
on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with one or two sureties of the like
amount.
(iii)) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station on
1st Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 till
framing of the charge and thereafter as and when required.
(iv) The applicant shall stay outside the Kopargaon till conclusion
of trial, except for the purpose of marking his attendance
before the investigating officer and attending court dates.
5 of 6
RB41BA1611-26
(v) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and
address to the investigating officer, immediately within a
period of one week from his release.
(vi) The applicant shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the
trial.
(iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses
and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any
manner.
( HITEN S. VENEGAONKAR, J.)
JPChavan
6 of 6
Checking your session…