1 508.25BA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 930 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 508 OF 2025 MAHESH @ BHAIYYA GAJANAN MUKHMAHALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr.S.J.Salunke APP for Respondent-State : Mr.G.O.Wattamwar … CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 12.06.2025 P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State. 2] The applicant is seeking bail as he is arrested on 25.04.2024 in connection with Crime No.218/2024, registered with Police Station Kurunda, Dist. Hingoli, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC, 1860 and under Section 4 r/w. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3] This is a successive Bail Application filed by the present applicant. Earlier the present applicant has filed Bail Application No.1589/2024 and the same was decided by 2025:BHC-AUG:14936 2 508.25BA order dated 14.10.2024. Facts of the case are noted at para no.3 of the said order, as noted below : 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the incident happened near Akhada i.e. in a field of Ramkishan. When the first informant was standing near the field, Ramkishan came there on bike. He was frightened. Immediately, three persons on bike followed him. First informant identified two of them. Third was unknown, who was transpired to be the present applicant. Co-accused Krushna started beating the deceased. One of the co-accused Nitin was holding the dagger. The nephew of the deceased was saying them not to beat his maternal uncle. They were beating the deceased. The first informant also reached there. He tried to pacify the dispute, but he was also threatened and asked not to intervene. Then, another accused Krushna taken out a knife from his waist, so the deceased started running. All the accused chased him. Co- accused Krushna stabbed the deceased with knife from his back. He fell down. He again got up and started running. He was again assaulted with knife on his left chest. In brief, the F.I.R. reveals that the deceased was trying to rescue, but the accused were again and again catching him and assaulting him with deadly weapon. 4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of Bail Application No.1589/2024 filed by the present applicant, Bail Application No.42/2025 filed by Nitin Sanjay Barse was taken up for consideration before this Court and by order dated 20th February, 2025, the same was allowed. He further submits that the role of the present applicant, so also, Nitin Barse is the same and both are not 3 508.25BA directly involved the commission of the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC and that there is no direct assault by the present applicant, so also, by Nitin Barse, which has resulted into death of the victim. The physical assault is made by Krushna [co-accused] and that the applicant has not assaulted the deceased, so also, Nitin Barse had not assaulted the deceased. Nitin Barse is alleged to be holding a knife in the hand and he obstructed the interveners in the assault made by the Krushna on the deceased. He further submits that the role of the present applicant cannot be higher than that of Nitin Barse. Considering the said fact, the bail application of the present applicant may be allowed. 5] The learned APP has pointed out the statement of the informant particularly he pointed out the role of the present applicant as noted in the FIR, as noted below : rso<;kr Ñ”.kkus R;kpsdMhy pkdwus jkefd’kuP;k ikBhoj okj dsyk o R;keqGs jkefd’ku [kkyh iMyk- ijarq thokP;k Hkhrhus yxsp rks Lor%yk okpfo.;klkBh dlkclk mBwu jLR;kdMs iGw ykxyk- R;kosGh rsFks eksVjlk;dyus xtkuu mQZ iIiw ikjkth caMs gk vkysyk eyk fnlyk R;kusgh jkefd’kuyk Ñ”.kk vkf.k R;kps lkFkhnkj ;kaP;k rkC;krwu lksMfo.;kpk iz;Ru dsyk ijarq R;k fr?kkaiSdh ,dkps uko ekfgr ukgh jkefd’kuyk R;kP;k leksj tkowu jks[kys o rks ek?kkjh fQjrkp Ñ”.kkus R;kP;k MkO;k HkdkGhe/;s pkdwus okj dsyk- R;keqGs jkefd’ku [kkyh iMyk- rks iMY;koj ns[khy Ñ”.kk lkscr vlysY;k vuksG[kh O;Drhus R;kyk ykFkkauh ekjk;yk lq:okr dsyh- 4 508.25BA 6] The learned APP further submits that role of the present applicant is not identical with the role of Nitin Barse. Nitin Barse was involved in obstructing the interveners in the fight. He further submits that when the deceased was running away, the present applicant stopped him and thereafter Krushna assaulted the deceased by knife. Therefore, the role of the present applicant is a positive one and the applicant is directly involved in the physical assault. As such, the role of the present applicant is not identical with the role of Nitin Barse. He further submits that after filing of the charge sheet, present applicant filed Bail Application No.1589/2024 and the same was rejected on merits by order dated 14.10.2024. Considering the said fact, no parity can be given to the present applicant, as there is no change in circumstance. 7] Considering rival submissions, more particularly, the present applicant had stopped the deceased from running away from the spot and thereafter Krishna assaulted the deceased by knife. Therefore, the role of the present applicant is positive and direct in the assault on the victim in comparison to the role of Nitin Barse. As such, no parity can be claimed with Nitin and also there is no change in circumstance. No case is made out for grant of regular bail. Hence, the present application is dismissed. 5 508.25BA 8] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made herein above. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC