IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 955 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2281 OF 2025 RAM KUSHABA MOKASHE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. Bhargav Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A. V. Lawate, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 6th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Applicant seeks pre arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 487/2025, registered with Ashti Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 49 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. The First Information Report was lodged on 17.10.2025 in respect of an incident that occurred on 16.10.2025 at about 8:30 a.m. The first informant claims that the applicant drove the tractor and attempted to kill him. According to him, in the said incident, the informant sustained serious injuries and required hospitalization. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the documents on record indicate that there are disputes between the parties over the property and that civil proceedings are pending. It is his submission that, in such 955 ABA 2281.2025.odt 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:34129 circumstances, the possibility of false implication/over-implication cannot be ruled out. 4. Learned APP opposed the grant of any interim protection to the applicant by referring to the allegations against him in the First Information Report, which are supported by the injury certificate. 5. Prima facie, perusal of the record shows that there are disputes between the parties over the agricultural lands. Since there are disputes, the possibility of false implication/over-implication cannot be completely ruled out. In the light of this fact, perusal of the investigation papers does not indicate that any history of the injured having been driven over or dashed by the tractor was given to the Medical Officer. In such circumstances, the possibility of false implication/over-implication cannot be ruled out. In any case, the investigation is now practically over, with the seizure of the tractor also having been effected. This Court finds no reason not to confirm the interim relief granted on 24.12.2025. There is no allegation that the applicant has misused the liberty. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of the interim order dated 24.12.2025, except clause Nos. (ii) and (iii). ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 955 ABA 2281.2025.odt 2 of 2