Bombay High Court

VIJAY MUNJAJI GEJAGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

The court granted bail to the applicant, finding that the prosecution had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for continued detention.

Summary

The applicant, Vijay Munjaji Gejage, was arrested in connection with an alleged unlawful assembly that attacked Raju with sickles on 24 December 2024, invoking multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Maharashtra Police Act. The prosecution contended that the applicant actively participated and posed a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The defence argued that the applicant was not named in the FIR, witnesses did not implicate him, the injured party’s statement was recorded after his arrest, and no forensic or identification evidence linked him to the weapons. The court noted the absence of incriminating material, lack of a test identification parade, and procedural irregularities, and held that any risk of interference could be mitigated by imposing conditions. Consequently, the court granted bail with a bond, sureties, and specific restrictions on the applicant’s movements and conduct. The application was therefore disposed of with bail granted.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and related statutes.
Whether the prosecution has established sufficient evidentiary material to justify continued detention of the accused.
Whether conditions can be imposed to mitigate the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation if bail is granted.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 352
Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1)(3)

Subjects

bail
unlawful assembly
assault
procedural lapses
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
criminal procedure
Arms Act
Maharashtra Police Act

Judgment

66-BA-4768-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4768 OF 2025

Vijay Munjaji Gejage … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Digitally signed
________________________________________________________
by NILAM
NILAM SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.Harshwardhan Pawar, for the Applicant.
KAMBLE Date:
2026.01.16
10:57:48 +0530 Ms.R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2026

P.C. :

. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection

with CR No.516 of 2024, registered at Warje-Malwadi Police Station,

Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 352,

189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023; Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 7 of

the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and Sections 37(1)(3) read with

135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24 December 2024,

Page 1 of 6
66-BA-4768-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

harbouring a grudge arising out of an old dispute, co-accused Yash,

along with unknown assailants, formed an unlawful assembly and

launched an attack on Raju, the informant’s son, by means of sickles,

fists, and kicks, thereby causing bleeding injuries. During the course of

the investigation, it was revealed that the applicant assaulted the injured

using a sickle.

3. Mr Harshawardhan Pawar, the learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the applicant, asserting the applicant’s innocence, submits that

the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is submitted

that, although the applicant was not named in the FIR, he was arrested

on the same day the FIR was lodged. The witnesses, however, do not

implicate the applicant in any manner, and the motive for the alleged

crime is ascribed to the co-accused, Yash. The learned Counsel

highlights that the statement of Raju, the injured party, was recorded

only subsequent to the applicant’s arrest. The weapons purportedly

used in the commission of the offence were recovered from an open

area, at the instance of the co-accused, and not from the applicant.

Additionally, it is submitted that the injury certificate does not align

with the allegations set out in the FIR, and that MCOCA and other

Page 2 of 6
66-BA-4768-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

serious offences have been registered against the injured. The learned

Counsel further submits that the applicant is willing to comply with

any conditions this Court may deem fit to impose, including residing

outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station for the duration

of the trial.

4. On the other hand, Ms.R.D. Humane, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State,

opposes the applicant’s request for bail, citing the gravity and

seriousness of the offence. He submits that a specific role has been

attributed to the applicant, demonstrating his active participation in the

crime. The applicant, along with the co-accused, formed an unlawful

assembly and, in a brazen act of violence, launched a brutal attack on

the injured, targeting vital parts of the body and causing bleeding

injuries. The learned APP expresses apprehensions that, if the

Applicant is released on bail, the Applicant may tamper with evidence

and influence prosecution witnesses.

5. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival

contentions canvassed across the Bar and perused the records.

6. Upon perusing the records, it appears that the alleged

Page 3 of 6
66-BA-4768-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

incident occurred on the night of 24 December 2024, and the crime

was reported in the early hours of 25 December 2024. The statements

of Vishwavijay, Aniket, and Digambar were recorded on 26 December

2024, whereas the statement of Ganesh and Tukaram was recorded on

30 December 2024 and 8 January 2025, respectively. Notably, the

informant and these witnesses do not implicate the applicant in any

manner whatsoever. The memorandum panchanama of co-accused

Yash, at whose instance the weapons allegedly used in the commission

of the offence were recovered, was recorded on 27 December 2024. It

is pertinent to note that the present applicant was arrested in the late

hours of 25 December 2024, when there existed no incriminating

material against him. The material available on record reveals that the

applicant was implicated based on the statement of the injured, which

was recorded much after his arrest on 1 January 2025. Significantly, the

allegations in the FIR do not align with the injury certificate, and there

is no FSL report qua the blood-stained weapons. Furthermore, no Test

Identification Parade has been conducted till the date. The applicant

has been languishing in jail since 25 December 2024, and despite the

filing of the charge sheet, there has been no substantial progress in the

Page 4 of 6
66-BA-4768-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

trial proceedings. The prosecution’s apprehensions about potential

evidence tampering of evidence and witness influence can be addressed

by imposing appropriate conditions. Moreover, the learned Counsel

for the applicant submits that the applicant is willing to comply with

any conditions this Court imposes, including residing outside the

jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station until the conclusion of the

trial.

7. In light of the foregoing, this Court is inclined to grant bail

to the applicant. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in CR

No.516 of 2024, registered at Warje-Malwadi Police

Station, Pune, upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/-

and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant, himself or through any other

person, shall not tamper with the evidence or influence

witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend and cooperate

with the trial proceedings for the expeditious disposal of

Page 5 of 6
66-BA-4768-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

the case.

(iv) The applicant shall refrain from entering the

territorial limits of Warje- Malwadi Police Station, Pune,

until the conclusion of the trial, save and except to attend

the trial proceedings.

(v) The applicant shall inform the Inspector of the

concerned Police Station of his residential and contact

information and update him forthwith of any changes

therein.

8. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…