Bombay High Court

KARTARSINGH HATYARSINGH TAKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: SACHIN S DESHMUKH

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as the arrest was on suspicion, no incriminating evidence was found, and parity with the co‑accused on bail mandates release.

Summary

The applicant, Kartarsingh Hatyarsingh Tak, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 321/2025 for alleged offences under Section 310(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act after police seized a vehicle containing weapons and identified him as a passenger. The applicant contended that his involvement was false, that the arrest was based solely on suspicion, and that no incriminating material was recovered from him, especially since a co‑accused had already been released on bail. The State opposed bail, labeling the applicant a habitual offender and fearing he might repeat similar offences. The court examined the charge‑sheet and found that, apart from his presence in the vehicle, there was no substantive evidence linking him to the crime, and noted the principle of parity with the co‑accused who was on bail. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail, imposing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties and several conditions, while emphasizing that the order does not prejudice the trial’s merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the arrest is based merely on suspicion and no incriminating evidence is found against the accused.
Whether the presence of the accused in a vehicle containing weapons suffices for continued detention.
Whether the habitual offender status of the accused precludes bail.
Whether parity with a co‑accused already released on bail mandates granting bail to the applicant.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 310(4)

Subjects

bail
suspicion
habitual offender
weapons seizure
Section 310(4) B.N.S.
Arms Act
parity
criminal procedure

Judgment

                                -1-
                                                       ba2373.25.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             949 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2373 OF 2025

Kartarsingh Hatyarsingh Tak                     ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                        …..Respondent

Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B. B. Bhise, APP for the State.

                              CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                              DATE  : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.      Applicant has preferred this application seeking regular bail

in connection with Crime No. 321/2025 registered with Ramtirth

Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section

310(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 and Section 4/25 of Arms

Act.



2.     The case of prosecution is that on 29.10.2025 when the

complainant along with driver were in patrolling duty, received

information on phone that they have to go at Ramtirth. Accordingly,

when they reached Ramtirth, they were told by police personnel at

Degloor that when they were on patrolling duty at Madnur Naka,

found one white colour vehicle bearing registration No. MH 03 CV
                                  -2-
                                                       ba2373.25.odt

8664.      They took photograph of the vehicle and on enquiry, the

accused fled towards Nanded.      Thereafter, complainant along with

other police personnel, followed the vehicle.    When reached near

Shankar Nagar, accused turned the vehicle towards village Ramtirth.

Complainant followed the vehicle and at 4.00 am when reached at

Dongaon, caught the Applicant along with co-accused and seized the

vehicle.    They found knife, iron rod and sword in the said vehicle.

The vehicle and two mobile phones were also seized.           In this

backdrop, the First Information Report came to be lodged.



3.      Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant

is falsely involved in the crime. There is no incriminating evidence

against the Applicant. The arrest of the Applicant is effected only on

the basis of suspicion. Further, nothing is to be recovered from the

Applicant. The co-accused is enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court.

Applicant is arrested on 29.10.2025.     Investigation in the crime is

complete and charge-sheet is filed.      Hence, prayed to allow the

application.



4.      Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the

application submitting that the Applicant is a habitual offender and
                                 -3-
                                                        ba2373.25.odt

several offences including bodily offences are registered against him.

An apprehension is also expressed that if the Applicant is enlarged

on bail, there is every possibility that he may indulge in the similar

offences. Hence, prayed to reject the application.



5.    Upon considering submissions of both sides and on perusal of

the record, including charge-sheet, it prima facie appears that the

arrest of the Applicant is effected on the basis of suspicion. Nothing

is to be recovered from the Applicant.      Except the fact that the

Applicant was found in the vehicle with weapons, prima facie nothing

incriminating evidence is there on record to indicate complicity of the

Applicant in the present crime. Further, the co-accused is enlarged

on bail.   Thus, Applicant is entitled to be admitted to bail on the

ground of parity.



6.    Nevertheless, investigation in the crime is complete for all

purpose and intent. Resultantly, charge-sheet is filed. Applicant is

arrested on 29.10.2025.    In view of the fact that the arrest of the

Applicant is effected on the ground of suspicion coupled with the fact

that the co-accused is enlarged on bail, further incarceration of the
                                            -4-
                                                              ba2373.25.odt

Applicant is unjustified. Thus, I am inclined to exercise discretion in

favour of the Applicant.



7.          Hence, the following order :-

                                        ORDER

     (i)          Application is allowed.
     (ii)         Applicant Kartarsingh Hatyarsingh Tak, be released on
     bail, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-
     (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one or two local solvent sureties, in
     the like amount, in connection with Crime No. 321/2025
     registered with Ramtirth Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the
     offence punishable under Section 310(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya
     Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/25 of 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 of the Applicant and two of the near
            relatives.
                                   -5-
                                                         ba2373.25.odt

      (d)     In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
      Applicant, it is open for the prosecution to move
      concerned Court seeking cancellation of bail.


  (iii)     Needless to state that, nothing stated hereinabove shall
  be construed as an expression on merits of the case. Learned
  Trial court shall proceed independently and uninfluenced by
  the observations made hereinabove.


                                            (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…