PRADIP SAMBHAJI MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                1                      38.BA-484-2026.doc




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 484 OF 2026
               PRADIP SAMBHAJI MORE
                       VERSUS
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                             …
        Advocate for Applicant : Adv. Pallavi Kante

     APP for Respondents/State : Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh
                            …
                           CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                             DATE : 27th JULY 2026

PER COURT :
1.         Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the
learned APP for the State.

2.         The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking regular
bail in connection with Crime No.428/2025 registered with
Kavthemahankal Police Station, District Sangli for the offences
punishable under Sections 111(2)(B), 109, 189(2), 189(4), 191(2),
191(3), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 37(1), (3) 135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act.


3.         The case of the prosecution is that the Informant resides
along with his family members at village Kongnoli, Taluka Kavthe-
                              2                      38.BA-484-2026.doc




Mahankal. He is acquainted with accused No.8 – Atul, with whom
there were petty disputes. On 11.11.2025, at about 4.50 p.m., the
Informant’s brother Mansur made a phone call stating that while he
was travelling with his wife Saisha in a Fortuner vehicle bearing No.
MH-04/EQ-0448 towards the hospital, upon reaching near Bamane
Corner, Salgare, accused No.8 – Atul obstructed their car, hurled
abuses, and assaulted them. Therefore, Informant told his brother
Mansur to lodge the report. Thereafter, Informant along-with his wife
Karishma went to Salgare. At that time, accused No.8 – Atul left the
spot through his Baleno Car. At that time, Rahul Kamble and his wife
Anisha Kamble were present. Accused No.8 – Atul has also abuses
and beaten to them. Accordingly, Informant along-with his wife,
Mansur along-with his wife and Rahul Kamble along-with his wife
through Fortuner went to police station to lodge report. At about
7.30 p.m., the Informant’s brother Mansur and his wife further Rahul
Kamble and his wife went inside the police station to lodge the report
and informant and his wife Karishma were sitting in the Fortuner
parked on the road which goes to the Vidyanagar. At about 08:00
p.m., after conversing with Sanjay Koli and Shahaji Dodmise, the
Informant, while approaching his Fortuner vehicle, was accosted by
the accused who arrived in two cars. They hurled abuses and
threatened the Informant, stating that unless he called back his
brother, he would not be spared. Thereafter, accused No.1 – Ravi,
along with the other accused, began assaulting the Informant with
sticks and kick blows. At that time, accused No.3 – Lokesh, accused
No.4 – Mahaveer @ Mahadev Bhandare, and accused No.5 –
                               3                        38.BA-484-2026.doc




Somnath Davare caught hold of the Informant’s hands. Accused No.1
– Ravi, exhorting to kill the Informant, took out a knife and assaulted
him in the stomach. The present accused No.2 – Pradip also assaulted
the Informant with a knife on the left side of his rib. Due to the hue
and cry raised by his wife Karishma, all the accused fled from the
spot. Thereafter, the Informant’s brother and the police reached the
place of incident. The Informant was first admitted to the Sub-
District Hospital, Kavthe-Mahankal, and subsequently shifted to the
Civil Hospital, Miraj. Accordingly, Informant has lodged the report
against the accused.


4.       The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the
Applicant is falsely implicated in the present crime only with
intention of wreaking vengeance. The allegations are levelled only to
attract stringent provisions. The injuries sustained are simple in
nature. There exists a discrepancy between two injury certificates,
one issued by the Sub-District Hospital, Kavthemahankal, and the
other by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Miraj. The
certificate issued by GMC, Miraj, records two simple injuries, whereas
the certificate issued by the Sub-District Hospital notes three injuries.
The other allegations against the Applicant are not substantiated by
any cogent evidence. The memorandum of recovery does not disclose
any knife bearing blood stains allegedly recovered at the instance of
the Applicant. Similarly, the clothes seized do not bear any blood
stains. These recoveries have been deliberately fabricated by the
Investigating Officer with the sole intention of implicating the
                               4                        38.BA-484-2026.doc




Applicant in the alleged crime. They constitute concocted offences
planted by the Investigating Officer. The Applicant has only one
criminal antecedent, which has been duly disclosed in the affidavit of
disclosure. In that case, the Applicant was acquitted way back in the
year 2024. There is no evidence to connect the Applicant with the
crime. Apart from the aforesaid, the Applicant has no other offences
registered against him. The Applicant was arrested on 12.11.2025.
The investigation has since been completed and the charge-sheet has
been filed. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be
served by keeping the Applicant in continued custody. The Applicant
is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this
Court. Hence he may be released on bail.


5.       As against this, the learned APP strongly opposes the
application on the ground that the Applicant is involved in the
serious offence of attempt to murder, which is punishable with life
imprisonment. The Applicant has been directly attributed with the
major role of assault by means of a knife, resulting in grievous injury.
The knife and clothes have been recovered. The absence of blood
stains thereon is a matter to be appreciated during trial, and the
Applicant cannot take advantage of the same. The Applicant has one
prior crime, which though resulted in acquittal, shows the criminal
tendency of the Applicant. Apart from the Applicant, all other co-
accused are also history-sheeters. There is every likelihood that, if the
Applicant released on bail, he may again indulge in identical offences
and threaten the Complainant and her family members. Hence the
                               5                        38.BA-484-2026.doc




application may be rejected.


6.       I have gone through the charge-sheet filed in the present
crime. A perusal of the medical certificate issued by the Sub-District
Hospital, Kavthemahankal, as well as the injury certificate of the
Complainant, Mohsin Jamadar, issued by the Government Medical
College and Hospital, Miraj, reveals a serious discrepancy. The final
injury certificate records a grievous injury in the form of a fracture,
along with two other simple injuries mentioned as stab wounds. The
injury certificate issued by GMC, Miraj, shows only two incised
wounds and the nature of injuries is as simple. Surprisingly, the
grievous injury shown in the final injury certificate is not mentioned
in the certificate issued by GMC, Miraj. Thus the allegations of
assault by means of a knife attributed to the present Applicant are
themselves doubtful. The other co-accused are attributed a major role
in the assault along with the present Applicant. It cannot be therefore
concluded that the Applicant alone is responsible for the injuries
sustained by the Complainant. However, these observations are prima
facie in nature and are made only for the purpose of deciding the
present application and the same shall not influence the trial Court.
The Applicant was arrested on 12.11.2025 and is behind bars since
then. The investigation is completed and the charge-sheet has been
filed. Taking into consideration that the trial will take its own time to
conclude, further incarceration of the Applicant would serve no
fruitful purpose. The Applicant has other criminal antecedents which,
however, the same has resulted in acquittal vide judgment dated
                                6                       38.BA-484-2026.doc




10.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli,
in Sessions Case No. 134/2018. The apprehensions of the learned
APP can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions upon the
Applicant. Hence the following order :
                                 ORDER
(A)   The Applicant shall be released on bail in connection with
Crime No.428/2025 registered with Kavthemahankal Police Station,
District Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(B),
109, 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3),
351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections
37(1), (3) 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, on furnishing PR Bond
of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.


(B)   The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Kavthemahankal Police Station, District Sangli, on 1st day of every
month till the conclusion of the trial.


(C)   The Applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and he shall
attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court.


(D)   The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
or attempt to influence or threaten any witness in any manner. A
single incident of such conduct would entitle the prosecution to seek
cancellation of the bail granted to the present applicant.


(E)   The Applicant, upon being released on bail, shall furnish his
                               7                        38.BA-484-2026.doc




residential address, contact number, and copies of his Aadhaar / PAN
Cards to the Investigating Officer as well as trial Court, and shall also
provide the names, addresses, and contact numbers of his close
relatives for the purpose of record and verification.


(F)        The bail application is allowed in the above terms and
stands disposed of.



                                             MEHROZ K. PATHAN
                                                 JUDGE




NAJEEB..