Bombay High Court

RAM ALIAS SATISH SANTOSH SONAWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant, subject to strict conditions.

Summary

Ram Sonawane was arrested for a violent clash that occurred during a Ganpati festival in Patonda village, which resulted in the death of Vishnu Ratan Gavit. The FIR alleged that Sonawane struck the deceased with a wooden stick, leading to fatal head injuries, and he was charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Police Act. Sonawane filed a cross‑complaint claiming he was also assaulted and argued there was no intention to kill, emphasizing the absence of mens rea and that the fight was a mutual ‘free fight’ involving members of both groups. The prosecution relied on eyewitness statements, a post‑mortem report, and oral dying declarations to establish his involvement. The court examined whether the lack of pre‑meditation and the fact that other co‑accused were granted bail warranted the same relief for Sonawane. Finding no compelling material to deny bail and noting his clean antecedent record, the court granted regular bail with stringent conditions, including a cash bond, travel restrictions, surrender of identity documents, and cooperation with the investigation.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged with offences including murder under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Police Act.
Whether the absence of mens rea (intent to kill) and the characterization of the incident as a ‘free fight’ justify granting bail.
Whether the bail of co‑accused in the same case influences the applicant’s right to bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 3(5)
Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1), 37(3)

Subjects

bail
mens rea
murder
cross‑complaint
free fight
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Maharashtra Police Act
criminal procedure
conditions of bail

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:15141
1 278 - 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

34 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 278 OF 2026

Ram @ Satish S/o. Santosh Sonawane
Age : 27 years, Occupation : Service,
Resident of At Post Patonda,
Nandurbar, Tal & Dist. : Nandurbar,
Maharashtra … Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,
Through : The Police Inspector /
Investigating Officer,
Nandurbar City Police Station,
Nandurbar, Tal. & Dist. : Nandurbar … Respondent

…
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ajaykumar D. Ostwal
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. Mr. P.V. Diggikar

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 08.04.2026

PER COURT :

Heard both sides.

2. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 522 of
2026, registered with Nandurbar Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Section 103(1), 109, 118(1), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under section 37(1), 37(3), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

3. A report is lodged with Police on 19.08.2024 by Vishal Ranchod Gavit that
at night on a day prior thereto, there was meeting in between two groups to settle
the disputes amongst them. The meeting was projected to settle the disputes
which occurred during the Ganpati festival in the village. It is stated that a free
fight started and informant was assaulted by stone by the applicant and,
thereafter, Vishnu Ratan Gavit was given blow by him by wooden stick on his

1/4
2 278 - 2026

head. The members present over there also assaulted each other. Later-on, it
was reported that Vishnu succumbed to the injuries.

4. Applicant was arrested on 19.08.2024. Charge-sheet was filed on
21.03.2025.

5. Applicant also lodged a complaint on 19.08.2024 at later point of time
against Vishal (informant), Shantilal, Vishnu (deceased) and Danvel. It is alleged
that in the meeting which took place on 18.08.2024, there was fight amongst the
members of the two groups. Vishal assaulted applicant by wooden stick and
Danvel assaulted by iron chain on his head. Santosh, Vishnu (deceased) also
assaulted Dinesh by wooden stick.

6. The chargesheet is filed against 6 persons and all of them are released on
bail except the applicant. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks bail on the ground that there was no criminal intention to eliminate the
deceased. It was free fight and members of both the groups were assaulted. Co-
accused Supdu and Arun were released on bail against whom similar allegation
were made. There is no clinching material against the applicant and he is falsely
implicated in the offence.

7. Per contra, learned APP would submit that FIR and account of eye witness
Gajanan and Vishal are consistent. Post mortem report shows head injury. There
are oral dying declarations in the form of statement of Bharti and Ratan. The
statements of Pravin and Gajanan also corroborate the prosecution story. Charge
has been framed and very soon the trial is likely to be concluded.

8. It is a case of cross-complaints. There was free fight in the rival groups on
accounts of issues in respect of Ganpati festival. Members of both the groups
received injuries. In the mob lynching, Vishnu succumbed to the injuries.
Informant Shubham as well as applicant who is informant in cross-complaint,
received injuries.

9. There is a material to show that applicant used wooden stick to inflict blow
on Vishnu. The post-mortem report also shows that death is due to the head
injury. There are statements of the eye witnesses to show involvement of the

2/4
3 278 - 2026

applicant.

10. It is relevant to notice that there is absence of mens rea to eliminate Vishnu
or any other member of the rival group. It is not a case that applicant had gone to
the incident with a intention, preparation and armed with weapon. The sticks used
in the assault are available at village and that itself cannot be said to be the
preparation. The members from both the groups received the injuries.

11. The chargesheet is filed in both the cases. All accused are released on
bail except the present applicant. No antecedents are reported against him. A
care can be taken by imposing stringent condition but it is not a case to deny bail
to the applicant.

12. I, therefore, pass the following order :-

ORDER

I] The Bail Application is allowed.

II] The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. Crime
No. 522 of 2026, registered with Nandurbar Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Section 103(1), 109, 118(1), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 3(5)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under section 37(1), 37(3), 135 of Maharashtra
Police Act, on following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall furnish P.R. bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.
Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount.

(b)The applicant shall not enter village Patonda, Tq. and District
Nandurbar till conclusion of the trial and he shall report
whereabouts and the contact number to the Investigating
Officer.

3/4
4 278 - 2026

(d) The applicant shall surrender his Adhaar and PAN cards to
the Investigating Officer.

(e) Applicant shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the
trial.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

arp/-

4/4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…