RB41BA1611-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1611 of 2026 Tanveer Sikandar Bagwan Age 23 years, Occu: Labor R/o Dattanagar, Kopargaon District Ahilyanagar ... Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Kopargaon City Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar … Respondent ..... Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. V. Hange, APP for the Respondent State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAONKAR, J. DATE: 21st September, 2026 ORDER:- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State. With the able assistance of the learned Advocates, I have also perused the charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency in the present application. 2. The present application is for regular bail by the applicant, who is arraigned as accused in connection with Crime No. 205 of 2026 registered with Kopargaon Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) 115, 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the evening of 1 of 6 2026:BHC-AUG:42966 RB41BA1611-26 15.04.2026, the informant Rehan Shaikh, his father Farooque and his brother Ayan confronted the applicant over the suspected relations with a woman in their family. An altercation took place between them and the applicant alleged to have taken out a weapon called chopper and stuck Farooque on the head, near the ear and neck. It is also alleged that with the same weapon the applicant had also assaulted and injured the witness Ayan when he tried to intervene. The other two accused persons are alleged to have joined the applicant at the time of assault and have used their fist and kicks. The FIR is registered on 16.04.2026. The applicant came to be arrested on 01.06.2026 and since then he is in custody. It is not disputed that the other two accused persons are already released on bail. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the occurrence is sudden and the alleged incident has taken place due to altercations and provocation that has been performed by the complainant’s party. He argued that the applicant himself has sustained serious injury and, therefore, his mother has lodged an FIR No. 206 of 2026 in resect of the same incident against the member of the informant's family. The learned counsel also points out the history of assault by an unknown person recorded at the Farooque’s first Hospital examination. His discharge, according to the applicant, is on 17.04.2026 after the treatment and therefore, the injuries, according to him, cannot be said to be grievous or serious in nature and he has been discharged within 24 hours. He further argues that the applicant is 2 of 6 RB41BA1611-26 not a hard-earned criminal and there are no criminal antecedents. The charge-sheet has been filed and thus, investigation is completed. The weapon has also been recovered. In such situation, the trial is not likely to commence sooner and therefore, the application of the applicant be considered and he be released on bail. 5. The learned APP appearing for the State opposes the application by submitting that there is a specific role attributed to the present applicant and othet witnesses. He argues that the applicant is the main assailant in the alleged offence who has used a deadly weapon and assaulted the injured Farooque on his head, neck and ear which are said to be vital organs of the body. The weapon has also been recovered during the investigation and the medical evidence which are placed on record suggests that there are serious and grievous injuries caused to the vital part of the body of the victim. He argues that the CT scan examination discloses a small haemorrhage in the Victim Farooque’s right cerebellum. He further submits that release of two accused persons cannot be equated with the role that has been attributed and performed by the present applicant. According to him, this is not a case of parity and the role of the present applicant is materially different from that of the other accused persons. He further argues that the parties reside in the same locality and therefore, grant of bail may expose the witnesses to the pressure of the present applicant. 6. I have considered the record and also the argument that has 3 of 6 RB41BA1611-26 been advanced by the learned Advocates. The allegation against the present applicant, no doubt, is serious and specific. The injury that has been caused to Farooque cannot be described as superficial for the reason that the medical material records wounds to the head, ear and neck as well as a small intracranial haemorrhage. His discharge from the Hospital on the following day does not by itself indicate either the injury or the prosecution case. Equally, the history of the assault by an unknown person in the first Hospital record cannot presently displace the account of the witnesses who named the applicant. On the contrary, the cross FIR registered about the same incident strengthens the case that the incident has taken place between the applicant’s family and the informant’s family. The question as to who was aggressor and who prompted the entire incident will be a matter that will have to be tested in trial. The cross FIR and the applicant’s treatment shows that the persons from both the sides have sustained injuries in the same occurrence. They do not establish, at this stage, who initiated the violence or whether the applicant’s alleged use of chopper was justified. Those questions including the nature of its intention require assessment upon evidence. The bail order cannot evaluate these materials. However, the fact remains that the use of chopper and the assault caused by the present applicant specifically on the vital part of the body does not give any kind of parity to the applicant between the other two accused persons who are released on bail. 7. However, the fact remains that the investigation in the 4 of 6 RB41BA1611-26 present crime is complete and charge-sheet was filed on 10.07.2026 and the applicant has been in custody since 01.06.2026. Having regard to this circumstance, the completed investigation and the stage of proceedings, his continued detention is not necessary to secure the investigation. The concern arising from the parties’ proximity can be addressed by conditions restraining contact with the injured persons and witnesses and also by putting restraint on the habitation of the applicant within the vicinity where the witnesses reside. On an overall assessment, the applicant may be released on bail. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicant, in connection with Crime No. 205 of 2026 registered with Kopargaon Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) 115, 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two sureties of the like amount. (iii)) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station on 1st Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 till framing of the charge and thereafter as and when required. (iv) The applicant shall stay outside the Kopargaon till conclusion of trial, except for the purpose of marking his attendance before the investigating officer and attending court dates. 5 of 6 RB41BA1611-26 (v) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and address to the investigating officer, immediately within a period of one week from his release. (vi) The applicant shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the trial. (iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner. ( HITEN S. VENEGAONKAR, J.) JPChavan 6 of 6