Bombay High Court
SHIVRAJ GOVIND RATHOD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that the prosecution material is insufficient to establish a prima facie case and therefore allowed bail to the applicants.
Summary
The accused Shivraj, Bhimrao and Sahebrao were charged with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly assaulting the informant's family with iron rods, wooden sticks and an axe, causing injuries. The prosecution’s charge‑sheet contained injury certificates only for two victims and omitted statements and medical reports of other alleged victims, raising doubts about the completeness of the case. The defence argued that the missing evidence undermined the FIR’s narrative and that the accused were falsely implicated. The State contended that the FIR detailed the offences and that the accused used dangerous weapons, but could not explain the absence of key documents. The court found that the prosecution had not produced sufficient material to establish a prima facie case and consequently granted regular bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has produced sufficient material to establish a prima facie case against the accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the accused are entitled to regular bail given the nature of the alleged offences and the evidentiary gaps.
- Whether the absence of injury certificates and eyewitness statements justifies the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- prima facie case
- insufficient evidence
- assault
- dangerous weapons
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- charge sheet
- injury certificates
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45937
-1-
941-BA-1904-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1904 OF 2026
1. Shivraj S/o. Govind Rathod
2. Bhimrao S/o. Govind Rathod
3. Sahebrao S/o. Govind Rathod … Applicants
(Accused)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ashok Dinkar Raut
APP for Respondent - State : Mr. V. K. Kotecha
.....
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and the
learned A.P.P. for the State. The investigation is complete and the
charge-sheet is filed.
2. The applicants, who are arraigned as accused Nos. 1, 2
and 3 in C.R.No. 97 of 2026, dated 9 th May, 2026, for the offence
punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190,
351(2), 352 and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are
seeking regular bail by way of the present application in
connection with the above-referred crime, in which they have been
arrested and in custody since 19th May, 2026.
-2-
941-BA-1904-2026
3. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the applicants
submits that in all there are 09 accused persons in all, out of
which, 06 persons have already been released on bail.
4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, initially on 8 th
May, 2026, applicant No.1 and the present informant had quarrel
on account of demand raised by the present informant with
applicant No.1 in respect of an amount of Rs. 18,000/-, which the
informant claims to have been lent to applicant No. 1. During that
quarrel, applicant No.1 alleged to have slapped the informant and
threatened him not to demand any monies.
5 It is further alleged that, on the same day, at around
5:00 p.m., when the informant and his family members were in
front of their residential house, at that time, the present applicants
along with other co-accused persons came to the spot armed with
iron rod, wooden sticks and axe and started assaulting all the
family members of the informant. The First Information Report
categorically refers to the role played and weapon used by each of
the accused persons and also the assault that has been caused to
each of the family members with the aid of the weapon that was
assigned to the accused persons. After the medical treatment was
taken, the FIR came to be registered.
-3-
941-BA-1904-2026
6. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the
injury certificates annexed to the present charge-sheet are only in
respect of Maruti Jadhav, who is the father of the informant and
Vanitabai Jadhav, who is the wife of the informant. Apart from
that, neither the medical certificates or injury certificates of any
other injured is obtained by the prosecution nor their statements
appear in the charge-sheet. According to the learned Advocate for
the applicants, this very fact of absence of relevant material in the
charge-sheet, raises doubt about the prosecution story as to
whether this entire incident, as narrated in the FIR, has actually
taken place. He argues that the FIR gives description of every
accused holding a particular weapon and assaulting a particular
individual and causing injury to a particular and specific part of
the body. If that is so, then statements of those persons should
have been recorded by the investigating agency and also the
medical documents pertaining to those injuries ought to have been
part of the charge-sheet. He further submits that the applicants are
falsely implicated in the alleged offence.
7. He further argues that, going by the prosecution
material itself, the medical certificate of Maruti Jadhav shows that
there is one swelling injury to the head, which is termed a grievous
-4-
941-BA-1904-2026
injury and one injury pertaining to fracture of the nose. Rest all the
injuries are simple in nature. The FIR attributes the said injuries
being inflicted by applicant Bhimrao and it is alleged that the iron
rod was used by the said accused. The medical certificate of the
injured Vanitabai Jadhav are also attributed to applicant Bhimrao.
However, those injuries are simple in nature. He submits that,
during the investigation, the iron rod was recovered from the spot
and not at the instance of the present applicants. He submits that
there is no C.A. report to suggest that the iron rod recovered from
the spot had any bloodstains on it. Thus, he argues that the
implication of all the accused persons, without there being any
material in support of the First Information Report lodged by the
informant itself creates a serious doubt about the prosecution
story. He submits that the applicants have been in custody since
19th May, 2026 and six accused persons have already been
released on bail. Therefore, the present applicants also deserve to
be released on bail.
8. Learned A.P.P. opposes the application and submits
that the First Information Report gives the entire narration as to
how the alleged offence has been committed by the present
applicant. He submits that, all the accused persons were aided with
dangerous weapons and they have assaulted the entire family
-5-
941-BA-1904-2026
members of the informant. He submits that, the injury certificates
shows that there are grievous and fracture injury sustained by the
injured witnesses. He, however has no answer when a particular
question pertaining to non collection of the injury certificate of
other witnesses and statements of injured eye witnesses are not
forming part of the charge sheet. He submits that, the arrest of the
applicants in May 2026 is not proportionate if the offence that has
been alleged against them. He requests for rejection of the bail.
9. I have heard both the learned Advocates and have also
perused the documents on record. It is an admitted position that,
though the allegations in the FIR are specific that the entire family
of the informant has been assaulted with the aid of dangerous
weapons like iron rod, an axe and wooden sticks, and they
sustained injuries to vital parts of their bodies, yet the prosecution
report does not contain the important documents such as the
injury certificates of all the injured witnesses. Surprisingly, even
the statements of those injured eye-witnesses have not been
recorded by the Investigating Officer. This creates a serious dent in
the prosecution story. When there is no supporting material for the
allegations levelled in the First Information Report, in spite the fact
that the investigation is now complete, then it cannot be said that
there is sufficient material as on today on record to hold that the
-6-
941-BA-1904-2026
applicants have been prima facie involved in the offence. The
prosecution may lead evidence and prove the allegations levelled
against the present accused persons. As far as, for the purpose of
considering the application for bail, the material is insufficient, and
therefore, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
(i) The Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) The applicants shall be released on bail in Crime No. 97 of
2026 registered with Umari Police Station, District Nanded,
under Sections 109, 118(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190,
352, 351(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, on each
furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount,
subject to the following conditions :
a) The applicants shall attend the trial Court on every
date fixed, unless their attendance is specifically
exempted.
b) The applicants 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 applicants shall furnish their current residential
addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating
-7-
941-BA-1904-2026
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 applicants shall not leave India without prior
permission of the trial Court and, if they possess
passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court
within seven days of their release.
e) The applicants shall not involve themselves 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
Checking your session…