RB45BA1741-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 45 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1741 OF 2026 Mangesh Vinodrao Lolge VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ... Mr. Mundik Someshwar Manikrao, Advocate for Applicant Mrs. A. S. Deshpande,APP for Respondents CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 21st September, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. By the present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 366 of 2026, registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Dist. Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 3/25 and 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The applicant came to be arrested on 12.07.2026 and since then, he is in custody. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of information received from one Police Constable by name Dasare, attached to Local Crime Branch Police Station, Nanded, the applicant was accosted and searched, wherein, one country made pistol was found in possession of the present applicant. The FIR alleged that on 12.07.2026, while the informant was on patrolling duty along-with 1 of 5 RB45BA1741-26 other police staff, accosted the present applicant. He was found in possession of the country made pistol and it was further alleged that he was proceeding for conducting sale of the said pistol. During investigation, it transpired that the said pistol was purchased by the applicant from one Balaji Sangle of Nanded. The said Balaji Sangle was arrested and presently he is in custody. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the custody already undergone since 12.07.2026 is sufficient in the light of the allegations and the nature of offence. He argues that the allegation of pistol recovered from the present applicant had no ammunition and it was a single piece carried by the present applicant and hence, section 3(8) of the Arms Act will not apply in the present case. He further argues that there is no material to indicate that the said pistol was carried by the present applicant for the purpose of conducting sale of the said pistol. He submits that the applicant has already undergone police custody and has cooperated with the investigating agency. There is no necessity that the applicant should be confined to custody any further. He therefore, prays that the applicant be released on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned APP appearing for the State argues that the applicant was apprehended on the basis of secret information which included the information pertaining to the applicant proceeding with a country made pistol for the purpose of carrying sale of the said pistol. He submits that section 3(8) is, therefore, attracted which is 2 of 5 RB45BA1741-26 punishable with life. She further argues that the investigation pertaining to other co-accused persons and the syndicate is in progress and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to release the applicant at this stage. She further, on instructions, submits that the investigation is complete and within a period of 8 to 10 days, the prosecution is likely to file charge-sheet against the applicant and the other co-accused persons. According to her, at least till filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant should not be released on bail. 6. I have taken into consideration the arguments of both the Advocates and have also perused the case papers 7. It is the specific case of the prosecution against the applicant that when the applicant was accosted, he was found only with possession of one country made pistol which, according to the prosecution itself, was purchased by applicant from one Balaji Sangle, Nanded. The prosecution has not stated, except vague words, that he was going to the market to conduct sale of the said pistol. Once the case against the present applicant is specific that one single piece of country made pistol was recovered from the applicant, then whether section 3(8) of the Arms Act will be made out will be a question which will have to be determined on the basis of corroborative piece of evidence that will be brought before the trial court by the prosecution. At this stage, the only inference that can be drawn is that the applicant was found in possession of one single country made pistol without any 3 of 5 RB45BA1741-26 ammunition. There is also no piece of evidence that has been placed before this court to show that the applicant was actually proceeding for conducting sale of the said pistol. On the contrary, the applicant himself had purchased the said pistol from one Balaji Sangle who is the co-accused and arrested and lingering in jail. 8. In the light of the above and on the basis of the statement made that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is likely to be filed within a period of 8 to 10 days after obtaining sanction, I am inclined to allow this application and release the applicant on bail. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicant Mangesh Vinodrao Lolge, in connection with Crime No. 366 of 2026, registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Dist. Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 3/25 and 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 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 noon till filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter once in a month, till framing of charge. 4 of 5 RB45BA1741-26 (iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner. (iv) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and address to the investigating officer. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan` 5 of 5