IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 918 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1407 OF 2025 SIDDHARTH GRIMAJI UGHADE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … Mr. Manish Purushottam Tripathi, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S. G. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 740 OF 2025 RUSTUM NAMDEO UGHADE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. Pravin N Kalani, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. G. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. No.58/2025, registered with Tadkalas Police Station, Dist. Parbhani, for the offence punishable under Section 109, 118 (2), 118 (1), 115 (2), 125 (a), 352, 351(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 918 ABA 740.2025.odt 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:23676 2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that, on 14.03.2025 at about 5:00 p.m., the informant and the witnesses were assaulted by the applicants and the co-accused. The First Information Report refers to a pre-existing dispute between the parties over agricultural land. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that applicant Maruti had lodged a report in respect of the very same incident while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital and that the present First Information Report has been registered by way of a counterblast thereto. It is further submitted that co-accused Sagar, against whom allegations of a similar nature have been levelled, has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 05.05.2025 and that the said order has not been challenged by the prosecution. He, therefore, seeks grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants both on merits and on the ground of parity. 4. Learned APP opposes the application. It is his submission that specific allegations have been levelled against the present applicants of having assaulted the informant and the witnesses. He draws the attention of the Court to the injury certificates of the informant and the witnesses and contends that the said material prima facie discloses the involvement of the applicants in the crime. 918 ABA 740.2025.odt 2 of 4 5. Prima facie, a perusal of the investigation papers indicates that the informant and the other witnesses sustained simple injuries, whereas applicant Maruti was required to be hospitalized. Having regard to the counter reports lodged in respect of the same incident, it appears that an incident had indeed occurred on 14.03.2025 and the possibility that the injuries were sustained in the course of a free fight between the two groups cannot be ruled out. In the light of these circumstances, particularly when co- accused Sagar, against whom allegations of a similar nature have been levelled, has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, this Court finds no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of parity to the present applicants. It is also not disputed that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. 6. As far as applicant Laxman is concerned, there is an allegation that he, along with co-accused Anil, assaulted Arvind on his head. Learned APP sought to contend that the injury sustained by Arvind on his head lends support to the allegations levelled against applicant Laxman. 7. As observed hereinabove, the material on record prima facie indicates that the incident in question arose out of a fight between two groups. Though applicant Laxman and co-accused Anil are alleged to have assaulted Arvind on 918 ABA 740.2025.odt 3 of 4 his head, the injury certificate indicates only a single injury on the head, which is simple in nature. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no reason to reject the application insofar as applicant Laxman is concerned. 8. In the facts of the case, applications are allowed in terms of interim order dated 13.08.2025 and 05.05.2025 except clause (ii) and (B) respectively. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 918 ABA 740.2025.odt 4 of 4