AVINASH ALIAS BATLYA SAHEBRAO INGOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:1816
                                                 1                    917-BA-2058-25.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                               BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2058 OF 2025

                           AVINASH ALIAS BATLYA SAHEBRAO INGOLE
                                            VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                ...
                        Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shubham D. Jayabhar
                                                 (Appointed through Legal Aid)
                             APP for Respondent : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
                                                ...

                                          CORAM :        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                          DATE       :   17-01-2026
                PER COURT:-

                1.   The applicant seeks regular bail in Crime No.450 of 2021

                dated 13.12.2021 registered with Vajirabad Police Station, Nanded,

                for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148,

                149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act. In

                the said crime, the applicant is arrested on 16.12.2021.


                2.          The case of the prosecution that on 12.12.2021, the

                applicant and the co-accused, in furtherance of their common

                intention to kill the deceased by means of dagger. Therefore, the

                informant Milind, brother of deceased Rahul approached the police

                station and lodged the report for the commission of the aforesaid

                offences.


                3.   Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
                                    2                   917-BA-2058-25.odt



has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime due to a

preexisting enmity. The allegations are an afterthought. Further,

the co-accused has already been released on bail by the trial

Court. The applicant has been incarcerated for over four years,

and the investigation is complete. Therefore prayed that the

applicant be released on bail.


4.    Learned A.P.P. has opposed the application and submitted

that the allegations against the applicant are serious and sufficient

to demonstrate commission of the alleged offense. Further,

expressed the apprehension that there is possibility of tampering

with the prosecution witnesses as well as the evidence.          Hence,

prayed to reject the application.


5.    Having heard the respective counsel for both the sides and

upon perusal of record including chargesheet, prima facie, it

indicates that the applicant is in custody since 15.12.2021. Apart

the present applicants, all the co-accused have been enlarged on

bail by the trial court. The age of the applicant is only 23 years.


6.    The applicant is behind the bars for almost four years. When

confronted about the progress in trial, the learned A.P.P. could not

demonstrate the same. Thus, considering the totality of the

circumstances and adhering to the precedent set in the case of

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others;   MANU/SC/0609/2024,            dated   03.07.2024,     by    the
                                  3                   917-BA-2058-25.odt



Honourable Apex Court. which emphasizes granting bail when

continued incarceration serves no substantive purpose and parity

is established with co-accused, there is strong justification for the

applicant's release. As no further purpose would be served by

keeping the applicant behind bars, it is concluded that the

applicant is entitled to be released on bail.


7.     Moreover, the investigation is complete for all intent and

purpose, resultantly, the chargesheet is filed. Having regard to the

number of the accused and the witnesses which the prosecution

proposes to examine, it is very unlikely that the trial can be

commenced and concluded within a reasonable period. As such,

further detention of the applicant as an under-trial prisoner, in the

circumstances of the case does not seem to be either warranted or

justifiable. I am, therefore, persuaded to exercise the discretion in

favour of the applicant.


8.     As far as the apprehension expressed by the learned A.P.P. is

concerned, the same can be adequately taken care of by imposing

stringent conditions. Hence, the order:-


9.     Hence, the order:-

                               ORDER

(i)     The bail application is allowed.

(ii)    Applicant, Avinash @ Batlya Sahebrao Ingole, be released

        on bail, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
                                       4                  917-BA-2058-25.odt



          (Rs.Fifty Thousand) with one or two local solvent sureties, in

          the like amount, in connection with Crime No.450 of 2021,

          dated 13.12.2021 registered with Vajirabad Police Station,

          Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 302,

          143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections

          4/25 of the Arms Act, on the following conditions :-

        (a)     The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
                witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence,
                in any manner.
        (b)     The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every
                date unless exempted by the trial Court and shall not
                leave the area of jurisdiction of the concerned Police
                Station till conclusion of the trial.
        (c)     The applicant shall submit Aadhar and Pan Cards to the
                Investigating Officer and detailed address and phone
                numbers and two of the near relatives.
        (d)     In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
                applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this
                Court seeking cancellation of bail.


(iii)     Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are
          to the extent of this application and the trial Court shall not
          be influenced by the same.

(iv)      The     High     Court     Legal    Services   Sub-Committee,
          Aurangabad, to pay the fees of Rs.10,000/- to the appointed
          learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, as per rules.



                                       [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]
rrd