IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 936 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 124 OF 2024 SWAPNIL RAVINDRA KOLAPKAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Vinod Y. Bhide, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. S. S. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 28th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The Petitioners (accused Nos.4 to 7) seek quashing of the proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 296/2023, pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Ambajogai, District Beed, arising out of First Information Report No. 281/2023, registered with Ambejogai City Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The first informant reported that the incident occurred on 17.07.2023 at about 6.30 p.m., wherein accused Rahul initially abused and assaulted him. Thereafter, the said Rahul called some other boys on his mobile phone. The informant has stated the names of two persons amongst those other unknown persons. The allegation against co-accused Rahul is that, with the help of an 936 WP 124.2024.odt 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:38752-DB iron rod, he assaulted the informant on his head, causing a bleeding injury. There is an allegation against the other accused of having assaulted the informant. 3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that, admittedly, the Petitioners and the informant were not known to each other and, as such, it was absolutely necessary to conduct a test identification parade. He further submits that even the statement of the informant does not indicate that he would be in a position to identify the Petitioners if they were shown to him. It is his submission that, if the case of the prosecution is that co-accused Rahul had called the Petitioners on their mobile phones, the Investigating Agency ought to have conducted an investigation with regard to the CDRs of all concerned, which has not been done. Finally, it is his submission that one of the Petitioners, who is the Manager of Shriram Finance Company Ltd., was initially called upon to provide CCTV footage, which he duly provided to the Investigating Agency. It is his submission that, despite the CCTV footage having been provided to the Investigating Agency, the same has not been made part of the charge-sheet. According to him, this circumstance warrants drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution. 4. Learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant opposed the petition by contending that the statement of the informant is sufficient to 936 WP 124.2024.odt 2 of 3 establish the involvement of the Petitioners in the crime. They also referred to the injury certificate on record, indicating that the informant had sustained injuries. 5. Perusal of the record shows that the present Petitioners and the informant were not acquainted with each other. During the course of investigation, the informant has never claimed that he would be able to identify the present Petitioners if they were shown to him. Further, admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted during the course of investigation. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the present Petitioners were the persons who were present at the spot and caused assault on the informant along with the co-accused. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, even if the material collected during the course of investigation is accepted to be true, no offence is made out against the present Petitioners. 6. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 936 WP 124.2024.odt 3 of 3