Bombay High Court
MANGESH VINODRAO LOLGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate the requisite intent to sell, so Section 3(8) does not apply and bail was granted.
Summary
Mangesh Vinodrao Lolge was arrested on 12 July 2026 for alleged possession of a country‑made pistol and alleged intent to sell it, invoking Sections 3/25 and 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution relied on information from a police constable but offered no concrete evidence that the pistol was being sold, noting only that a single un‑loaded weapon was recovered. The defence argued that the lack of ammunition and the absence of any corroborative proof of sale meant Section 3(8) of the Arms Act did not apply, and that the applicant had already spent considerable time in custody. The court examined the factual record, found the prosecution’s case speculative, and noted that the charge‑sheet was yet to be filed. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond and reporting conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts disclosed establish the applicability of Section 3(8) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (possession of an unlicensed firearm with intent to sell).
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused pending filing of the charge‑sheet.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 3, 3(8), 7
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- illegal possession
- intent to sell
- Section 3(8)
- pre‑charge‑sheet detention
- criminal procedure
Judgment
RB45BA1741-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
45 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1741 OF 2026
Mangesh Vinodrao Lolge
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
...
Mr. Mundik Someshwar Manikrao, Advocate for Applicant
Mrs. A. S. Deshpande,APP for Respondents
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
Dated : 21st September, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for
the State.
2. By the present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail
in connection with Crime No. 366 of 2026, registered with
Bhagyanagar Police Station, Dist. Nanded for the offences punishable
under Sections 3/25 and 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The
applicant came to be arrested on 12.07.2026 and since then, he is in
custody.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of
information received from one Police Constable by name Dasare,
attached to Local Crime Branch Police Station, Nanded, the applicant
was accosted and searched, wherein, one country made pistol was
found in possession of the present applicant. The FIR alleged that on
12.07.2026, while the informant was on patrolling duty along-with
1 of 5
RB45BA1741-26
other police staff, accosted the present applicant. He was found in
possession of the country made pistol and it was further alleged that
he was proceeding for conducting sale of the said pistol. During
investigation, it transpired that the said pistol was purchased by the
applicant from one Balaji Sangle of Nanded. The said Balaji Sangle
was arrested and presently he is in custody.
4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the
custody already undergone since 12.07.2026 is sufficient in the light of
the allegations and the nature of offence. He argues that the allegation
of pistol recovered from the present applicant had no ammunition and
it was a single piece carried by the present applicant and hence,
section 3(8) of the Arms Act will not apply in the present case. He
further argues that there is no material to indicate that the said pistol
was carried by the present applicant for the purpose of conducting sale
of the said pistol. He submits that the applicant has already undergone
police custody and has cooperated with the investigating agency. There
is no necessity that the applicant should be confined to custody any
further. He therefore, prays that the applicant be released on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned APP appearing for the State argues
that the applicant was apprehended on the basis of secret information
which included the information pertaining to the applicant proceeding
with a country made pistol for the purpose of carrying sale of the said
pistol. He submits that section 3(8) is, therefore, attracted which is
2 of 5
RB45BA1741-26
punishable with life. She further argues that the investigation
pertaining to other co-accused persons and the syndicate is in progress
and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to release the applicant at this
stage. She further, on instructions, submits that the investigation is
complete and within a period of 8 to 10 days, the prosecution is likely
to file charge-sheet against the applicant and the other co-accused
persons. According to her, at least till filing of the charge-sheet, the
applicant should not be released on bail.
6. I have taken into consideration the arguments of both the
Advocates and have also perused the case papers
7. It is the specific case of the prosecution against the applicant
that when the applicant was accosted, he was found only with
possession of one country made pistol which, according to the
prosecution itself, was purchased by applicant from one Balaji Sangle,
Nanded. The prosecution has not stated, except vague words, that he
was going to the market to conduct sale of the said pistol. Once the
case against the present applicant is specific that one single piece of
country made pistol was recovered from the applicant, then whether
section 3(8) of the Arms Act will be made out will be a question which
will have to be determined on the basis of corroborative piece of
evidence that will be brought before the trial court by the prosecution.
At this stage, the only inference that can be drawn is that the applicant
was found in possession of one single country made pistol without any
3 of 5
RB45BA1741-26
ammunition. There is also no piece of evidence that has been placed
before this court to show that the applicant was actually proceeding for
conducting sale of the said pistol. On the contrary, the applicant
himself had purchased the said pistol from one Balaji Sangle who is the
co-accused and arrested and lingering in jail.
8. In the light of the above and on the basis of the statement
made that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is likely to
be filed within a period of 8 to 10 days after obtaining sanction, I am
inclined to allow this application and release the applicant on bail.
Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) The Applicant Mangesh Vinodrao Lolge, in connection with
Crime No. 366 of 2026, registered with Bhagyanagar Police
Station, Dist. Nanded for the offences punishable under
Sections 3/25 and 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 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 noon
till filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter once in a month,
till framing of charge.
4 of 5
RB45BA1741-26
(iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses
and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any
manner.
(iv) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and address
to the investigating officer.
(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan`
5 of 5
Checking your session…