Bombay High Court
VINOD PARASNATH SINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail was denied because a prima facie case existed and the applicant’s history of similar violent offences demonstrated a likelihood of reoffending.
Summary
The applicant, Vinod Parasnath Singh, sought bail in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly assaulting an informant and his companion at his dhaba, including beating, belt assault, stick assault, and dousing the victim with petrol. The prosecution alleged that the assault occurred after the informant refused to donate money, resulting in serious injuries and vision problems. The defence argued that the incident arose from a dispute over public urination and that there was no evidence to support the charge of criminal conspiracy (s.109 BNS). The court examined the police report, medical evidence, and the applicant’s extensive criminal record, which included several prior offences of a similar violent nature. Finding a prima facie case and noting the applicant’s repeat violent conduct, the court exercised its discretion to deny bail. The bail application was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- The existence of a prima facie case justifying denial of bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents warrant refusal of bail.
- Whether the alleged assault constitutes an offence under s.109 of the BNS (criminal conspiracy).
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 352
- Essential Commodities Act — s. 3, 7
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 285, 323, 324, 326, 34, 353, 389, 504, 506
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 131, 33
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act — s. 65, 65(e)
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 130(1), 177
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- violent offences
- criminal antecedents
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- prima facie case
Judgment
HEMANT H.C.SHIV 927.BA3074.26.DOC
CHANDERSEN
SHIV
Digitally signed by
HEMANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CHANDERSEN SHIV
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date: 2026.09.16
20:03:11 +0300
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3074 OF 2026
Vinod Parasnath Singh …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Induprakash Tiwari with Bhagayshri with Pawan Mali with
Yagni Sarvankar for the Applicant.
Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with
Crime No.61 of 2025, registered with Manor police station, Palghar
under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2) and 352 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) on the report dated 5 th
April, 2026 filed by the Informant-Danish Khan.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 4 th April 2026, at about 6:00
pm, the informant was proceeding towards Gujarat by driving his
tempo. His friend-Sonu was also proceeding towards Gujarat by a
separate vehicle. On their way, they halted at the Dhaba owned by
applicant. After freshening up, when the informant went to the cash
counter, the applicant, who was seated there told the informant to
donate Rs.20/- in the donation box. The informant replied that he
had no cash. Consequently, the applicant got annoyed. Further, the
applicant along with his 8 to 10 labors assaulted the informant and
Page 1 of 3
H.C.SHIV 927.BA3074.26.DOC
his friend-Sonu with the fist blows. One of the assailants and the
applicant assaulted the informant by means of belt. One assailant
assaulted him over the head by means of stick. The applicant
splashed petrol on the body and private part of the informant.
Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. On completion
of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet.
4. Mr.Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that
at the relevant time, the informant and his friend-Sonu were openly
urinating near the Dhaba. When the applicant’s labours objected,
the informant and his friend raised a dispute. Thereafter, there was
scuffle between the parties. He, further submitted that there is no
evidence to attract the offence u/S. 109 of BNS. Therefore, the
applicant be released on bail.
5. In reply, Mr.Pethe, learned APP submitted that the
investigation material indicates that the applicant was involved in
the said crime as he along with co-accused persons had assaulted
the victims. The applicant has similar criminal antecedents.
Therefore, the bail may be rejected.
6. I have considered the submissions of the parties. The
narration in the report indicate that, at the time of the incident, the
applicant and his labours had assaulted the informant and his
friend as noted above. The medical report supports the fact of
sustaining injuries by the informant. After the incident, the
informant had difficulty in vision. He was referred to higher center
for further management. Thus, there is a prima facie case against
the applicant.
The applicant has 10 criminal antecedents registered at
Manor police station :-
Page 2 of 3
H.C.SHIV 927.BA3074.26.DOC
Sr. No. C.R. No. Sections
1 C.R.No.03/2005 Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act.
2 C.R.No.02/2008 Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act
and Sec.65 of Maharashtra Prohibition Act
& Sec.33, 131 of Maharashtra Police Act.
3 C.R.No.11/2008 Sec.285 of IPC, Sec. 3, 7 of Essential
Commodities Act & Sections 130(1) and 177
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
4 C.R.No.69/2009 Sec.353, 285, 201, 34 of IPC and Sec. 3, 7 of
Essential Commodities Act
5 C.R.No.75/2009 Sec.389, 285, 34 of IPC
6 C.R.No.18/2012 Sec.147, 148, 149, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
7 C.R.No.82/2012 Sec.143, 147, 324, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.
8 C.R.No.142/2012 Sec.143, 147, 149, 323 of IPC.
9 C.R.No.52/2021 Sec.65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
10 C.R.No.65/2022 Section 324, 323, 504, 506 of IPC
The chart indicates that, half of which were bodily offences.
Thus, the past activities of the applicant are similar in nature to the
present case. This evinces that the applicant has no regard to the
law. In view thereof, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in
favour of the Applicant. The Bail Application is, therefore, liable to
be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
8. It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order
are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and
should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…