1 31-Cr.BA-1153-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 1153 OF 2026 Anand @ Aanya Kaduba Kakfale -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N.R. Rode, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026. Heard. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.280/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Buldhana (City), District Buldhana. 3. The First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged by the informant, Smt. Pushpa Bhaurao Jadhav, alleging that her son, Sagar @ Pappu Jadhav, had been in a relationship with Smt. Asha Vasanta Jadhav of Bhilwada, due to which her son had earlier been assaulted and threatened by Asha’s son, Sonu Jadhav. It is alleged that on 14/04/2026, while Sagar Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:12578 2 31-Cr.BA-1153-2026 was returning from the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti procession, at about 11:30 p.m. at Jaiswal Chowk, Buldhana, Sonu Jadhav allegedly stabbed him in the back with a knife. Sagar was initially taken to the Government Hospital and thereafter to Dr. Laddad’s hospital, where he was declared dead. Based on these allegations, the F.I.R. came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, so far as the name of the present applicant is concerned, it is not reflected in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was registered by the mother of the deceased. Admittedly, the F.I.R. report is based on hearsay information given by one of the persons, namely, Vijay Raut. Even upon perusal of the statement of Vijay Raut, the name of the applicant does not appear. He further submits that it is only after six days of the incident that a statement of Mahesh More was recorded, who was present at the relevant time at the spot, wherein it is alleged that accused No.1 inflicted a blow with the help of a knife. However, the knife was broken while giving assault on the deceased by accused No.1, and therefore, he took out the said knife from the pocket of the applicant. There is no overt act on the part of the applicant shown even in the statement of Piyush Mahajan 3 31-Cr.BA-1153-2026 Mahesh, only applicant’s presence is marked at the spot of incident. So far as the assault by the applicant on the deceased is concerned, the same does not appear even in the CCTV footage, wherein the entire episode has been captured. He further submits that, considering the nature of the allegations and the role of the applicant, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the application and submits that the applicant is a history-sheeter. He was involved in five offences, out of which he was acquitted in one offence. He further submits that all the offences are bodily offences registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that there is also one offence registered under Section 394. Even on the day of the incident, the applicant was present with the main accused, namely, Sonu @ Ritik Jadhao. He further submits that, though the presence of the applicant is not reflected in the F.I.R. and in the statement of Vijay Raut, the witness, namely, Mahesh More, who is an eye-witness to the incident, has specifically stated about the role of the present applicant. The applicant restrained Mahesh More from interferring in the quarrel which was going on between the deceased and the main accused, Sonu @ Piyush Mahajan 4 31-Cr.BA-1153-2026 Ritik. Even in the statement of Mahesh, a specific role has been attributed, stating that accused No.1, Sonu @ Ritik, and the present applicant assaulted the deceased. Therefore, he submits that, considering the seriousness of the crime and the fatal injuries caused to the deceased, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. I have considered the submissions of both sides. It appears that the applicant is having a criminal history. It is to be noted that the crimes were registered in the years 2020, 2023 and 2024, however, there is no recent crime registered against him, except the present offence. All the offences are registered under Section 324 of the IPC, and one is under Section 394. Though those offences are registered against the applicant, however, that by itself, will not preclude this Court from considering the present bail application on merits. Upon perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that accused No.1, Sonu @ Ritik Jadhao, had previous enmity with the deceased, Sagar. It appears that the deceased, Sagar, was having an illicit relationship with the mother of the main accused, Sonu @ Ritik Jadhao. On 14/04/2026, when the deceased was returning from the procession of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti, at about 11:30 p.m., the said Sonu @ Ritik Jadhao Piyush Mahajan 5 31-Cr.BA-1153-2026 assaulted the deceased with a knife. So far as the F.I.R. is concerned, the name of the applicant is not disclosed by the first informant, however, the F.I.R. was registered on the basis of the information given by Vijay Raut. After perusal of the statement of Vijay Raut, the information provided by him seems to be heresay because he has not witnessed the said incident, as the name of the present applicant does not find place in his statement either. There are two circumstances against the applicant, namely, (i) the statement of Mahesh More, who is stated to be an eye-witness, and (ii) the incident having been captured on CCTV footage. 7. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant was present at the time of committing the offence. The applicant, the main accused, Sonu @ Ritik Jadhao, and another person were present at the spot. However, it appears that the main role is attributed to Sonu @ Ritik Jadhao, who inflicted a blow with the help of a knife on the back of the deceased. It further appears that, due to the assault, the knife was broken, and he took the knife from the pocket of the applicant and again inflicted a blow. Needless to mention that the applicant had not given the said knife to Sonu @ Ritik Jadhao. 8. Even if the statement of Mahesh is taken as it is, the only role attributed to the applicant is his Piyush Mahajan 6 31-Cr.BA-1153-2026 presence at the spot and the assault allegedly made by him along with Sonu @ Ritik. There is no allegation that the present applicant had used a knife for assaulting the deceased. So far as the CCTV footage is concerned, the presence of the applicant at the spot was shown, and he is seen restraining Mahesh from interferring in the quarrel between Sagar and Sonu. Apparently, it appears that, even in the CCTV footage, no overt act of assaulting the deceased with a knife by the applicant was seen. Under such circumstances, merely because there are certain criminal offences registered against the applicant, that by itself will not preclude this Court from granting bail when the case is made out on merits. It is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayub Khan -Vrs.- State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763, wherein it has been held that if the accused is entitled to bail on merits, his antecedents would not become a hurdle to reject the same. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Application is allowed; Piyush Mahajan 7 31-Cr.BA-1153-2026 (ii) The applicant/accused (Anand @ Aanya Kaduba Kakfale) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.280/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Buldhana (City), District Buldhana, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount; (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and also shall not tamper with the evidence; (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to the Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency; (v) Once the trial commences, the accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail; Piyush Mahajan 8 31-Cr.BA-1153-2026 (vi) The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same; (vii) Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan Signed by: Piyush Ramesh Mahajan Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 15:13:02