Bombay High Court

GANESH MOHANRAO WAGHMAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: RAJNISH R VYAS

Holding

In the absence of evidence that the applicant knew of the weapon or intended to assist the stabbing, and considering his clean record, the court held that he is entitled to bail.

Summary

The applicant, accused No.2 in FIR No.293/2025, was arrested for alleged involvement in the murder of a husband on 10‑06‑2025, where accused No.1 stabbed the victim after a quarrel. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was present, abused the victim and held his hands, thereby facilitating the stabbing. The applicant contended that he had no knowledge of the knife, lacked intent, and was falsely implicated due to a family financial dispute, and he had no prior criminal record. The court examined the FIR, witness statements and the charge‑sheet and found no material showing the applicant knew about the weapon or actively participated in the stabbing. Relying on the absence of incriminating evidence and the applicant’s clean record, the court granted bail with standard conditions. The order released the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and imposed attendance and non‑interference conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the presence of the applicant at the scene and his alleged abusive conduct amount to participation sufficient to deny bail under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the prosecution has established the applicant’s knowledge of the weapon or intent to assist in the commission of the murder.
Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and the completed investigation justify the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
murder
assault
intent
false implication
criminal procedure
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
evidence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:11791


                                                 1                            933.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2026
                            GANESH MOHANRAO WAGHMARE
                                            VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                               ...
                          Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bhosle Santosh C.
                              APP for Respondent : Mr. A.R. Kale
                                               ...
                                                CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
                                                DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.          The present applicant who is original accused no. 2 in First

              Information Report No. 293/2025, dated 11.06.2025, for the offences

              punishable under Sections 103 (1), 115 (2), 3 (5), 351 (2), 351 (3) and

              352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, has approached this Court,

              praying for grant of bail. Accused no. 2 / the applicant was arrested on

              11.06.2025, on which date FIR was lodged. The incident had occurred on

              10.06.2025, which was reported by Savita Solanke / wife of the deceased.



              2.          In short, it is the case of prosecution that on 10.06.2025,

              accused no. 1 – Vijay had been to the house of the deceased and enquired

              about the presence of the deceased in the house. When enquired from the

              informant, it was told to accused no. 1 that deceased had been gone
                                    2                             933.odt


towards the filed, at that time, the informant noticed that accused no. 1

was carrying weapon / knife.



3.           In FIR, she further stated that accused no. 1 was roaming in

the village and saying that he would kill the husband of the informant. On

the same day, at 06:30 evening the husband of informant returned home

and the incident was narrated by the informant to her husband.



4.           At 08:00 p.m. on the same day again accused no. 1, came to

the house of the informant and demanded the amount from the deceased.

Thereafter, accused no. 1 started quarreling with the husband of

informant and also threaten him to kill. At that time, accused no. 2 /

applicant came and also started raising quarrel by hurling abuses to the

husband of informant and in scuffle the present applicant caught hold of

both the hands of the husband of informant, at which time, accused no. 1

took out the knife and gave stab injury in the stomach of the husband of

the informant. The victim was thereafter, taken to the hospital and he died

on 11.06.2025.



5.           It is in this background, criminal law was set in motion and

during the course of investigation, the weapon of crime was seized from
                                   3                             933.odt


the spot. After completion of investigation, one more accused is added in

the crime who was relative of original accused nos. 1 and 2.



5.           Heard the respective counsels.



6.           Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Bhosale, contended

that if the allegations in the FIR, so also documents which are part of

chargesheet are perused, it would reveal that the role ascertain to the

present applicant, prima facie, will show that there was neither the

intention nor the knowledge on his part to commit the offence. He,

further, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated, just

because his brother, had some financial transaction with the deceased,

due to which quarrel had took place. He, further, argued that since the

chargesheet is already filed and investigation is completed and

considering the fact that the accused has no criminal antecedents, he may

be released on bail.



7.           Per contra, learned APP has contended that considering the

scope of present proceedings, the detail examination of the evidence is

not at all necessary. According to him, the fact remains that when the

deceased was assaulted, the applicant was present on the spot and the act
                                     4                             933.odt


of the present applicant clearly shows that he facilitated accused no. 1 to

commit the crime. He submitted that considering the evidence available

on record, the applicant be not released on bail.



8.           With the assistance of both the counsels, I have gone

through the record of the case. The incident which is part of the final

report can be narrated in two parts. First part, in which, accused no. 1 had

been house of the victim and enquired about her husband, at which time,

accused no. 1 was carrying the knife which was noticed by the informant.

In the second part, incident which taken place at 08:00 p.m., it was

accused no. 1 who first came on the spot of incident and started a scuffle

with the husband of informant. Thereafter, the present applicant had

arrived who had also abused the husband of informant and had quarreled

with him and in that quarrel, he caught hold both the hands of the

deceased. It is the case of prosecution, at that time, it was accused no. 1

who took out the knife and gave a stab blow. Thus, the story advanced in

the FIR, so also version of other witnesses shows that first the hands of

the deceased were caught hold by the present applicant and, thereafter,

accused no. 1 had given a blow. The fact remains that nothing has been

brought on record by the prosecution to show that the applicant was

aware that accused no. 1 was carrying the knife. Apart from it, the role
                                     5                            933.odt


assigned to the present applicant that he had caught hold of the hands of

the present applicant, prima facie, shows that he was not actively

involved in the offence committed.



9.           Considering the fact that investigation is already completed

and the nature of material available against the present applicant as

discussed supra, so also the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, I am

inclined to allow the present application and accordingly, the following

order is passed :

                                 ORDER

      i.     Bail Application is allowed.


      ii.    The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with

      FIR No. 293/2025, dated 11.06.2026, registered with Bhokar

      Police Station, District Nanded, for commission of offence

      punishable under Sections 103 (1), 115 (2), 3 (5), 351 (2), 351 (3)

      and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing P.R.

      bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the

      like amount, on the following terms and conditions.


      iii.   The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on

      every Thursday between 10:00 and 12:00 in the morning.
                                   6                            933.odt


      iv.   The applicant shall not influence the witnesses or tamper the

      evidence.


      v.    The prosecution is at liberty to move the application for

      cancellation of bail, if the applicant breaches the any of the

      conditions.


      vi.   The applicant shall not leave the country without prior

      permission of this Court.




                                             ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )




SPC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…