-1- 40.BA-1364-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1364 OF 2026 BADRINATH S/O. MURLIDHAR JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ..... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. Yash Anil Jadhav a/w Vishwambhar Keshav Bhosale APP for Respondent - State : Mr. D. J. Patil Advocate for Original Informant : Mr.Ishwar D. Narode ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. The present applicant seeks his release on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 197 of 2026, registered with Bidkin Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural) for the offences punishable under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The applicant came to be arrested on 25th March, 2026. Since then, the applicant has been in custody. The investigation in the present offence is completed and the charge sheet has been filed on 15th June, 2026. It is submitted that, along with the present applicant, there is another co-accused, who happens to be the son of present applicant, is also in custody from 7th April, 2026. 2026:BHC-AUG:42609 -2- 40.BA-1364-2026 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 12:00 noon on 19th March, 2026, a quarrel took place between another son of the applicant by name Vaibhav and the son of informant namely Vivek Moti Jadhav. The dispute was then settled at the spot. At about 6.00 to 6.30 p.m. on the same day, when the informant injured was standing near Adarsh Kirana Shop, a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. MH-16-AT-4719 approached the spot. The vehicle was being driven by the applicant's son co- accused Vivek Jadhav, while the present applicant was seated beside him. It is alleged that the applicant pointed towards the injured, who was standing near the Kirana shop and further alleged that the co-accused then drove the vehicle towards the injured and gave him a forceful dash and dragged him for about 70 to 80 feet. The injured sustained fracture injuries to both his legs and other injuries are also caused to the victim. The prosecution therefore alleges that the applicant and the co-accused acted in furtherance of their common intention, attempted to cause death of the injured. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the entire act of driving the vehicle and causing the impact is attributed to the co-accused. No physical act causing injuries is -3- 40.BA-1364-2026 attributed to the present applicant. He further argues that the earliest hospital intimation dated 19th March 2026 merely states that the injured was struck by a Bolero vehicle while standing on the roadside. It does not name the applicant, neither refers to any hand gestures made by the present applicant nor states that the vehicle was deliberately driven over the injured. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses were recorded only on 30th March, 2026 and the allegation about the applicant pointing towards the injured has been repeated in those statements without any accompanying words. There is also nothing in the investigative material to suggest that the applicant had, in fact, commanded or committed any other conduct indicating that the applicant had directed the co-accused to drive the vehicle over the injured. 6. Learned Senior Counsel also argues that, the spot panchanama does not independently establish the alleged dragging for about 70 to 80 feet in a manner connecting any act of the applicant with the occurrence. It is submitted that mere ownership of the vehicle or the applicant's presence in it cannot establish common intention. Even the gesture that has been attributed to the applicant of pointing a finger towards the injured cannot be said to -4- 40.BA-1364-2026 be common intention or conspiracy to commit an attempt to murder the injured person. He argues that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The charge sheet has already been filed and further detention is unnecessary. 7. Learned APP opposed the application and submitted that the injured and the eye-witnesses have stated that the applicant pointed towards the injured immediately before the co- accused drove the vehicle in his direction. His entire thrust of the argument is that, the co-accused son has committed the offence, the involvement of the present applicant is equally established in the alleged offence. The incident was preceded by a dispute between the two families and the subsequent conduct of co-accused in ramming the vehicle and fleeing from the spot is relied upon to infer common intention. Attention was also invited to the injury certificate showing eight injuries, out of which five are described as grievous. The vehicle belongs to the applicant. Considering the nature of incident and the possibility of the applicants influencing the witnesses, the learned APP stated that the applicant should not be released on bail. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, the original informant adopted the arguments canvassed by the -5- 40.BA-1364-2026 learned APP. He also submitted that, in addition to that, there are three non-cognizable offences registered against relative of the applicant. He submits that these NCs were registered subsequent to the incident and arrest of the applicant. This shows that there is enmity between the entire family and the informant and his family. He, therefore, prays that the application be rejected. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the investigation papers. The injuries sustained by the injured are undoubtedly serious. The medical papers disclose fracture of both lower ribs, apart from other injuries. The seriousness of the injuries and the manner in which the vehicle was allegedly driven are relevant while considering the accusation under Section 109 of the BNS. At the same time, individual role attributed to the present applicant must be distinguished from the direct act attributed to the co-accused. 10. The Bolero vehicle was admittedly driven by the co- accused. It was the co-accused who controlled its speed and direction and allegedly drove it against the injured. The present applicant was a passenger and the only act attributed to the present applicant at the crucial moment is that he pointed towards the injured. Neither the FIR nor the statements presently brought -6- 40.BA-1364-2026 to the notice of this Court attribute any words, command or exhortation to the applicant when the vehicle was driven towards the injured. 11. Perusal of Section 3(5) of the BNS embodies the principle of joint liability. Common intention with the act sought to be attributed ordinarily has to be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. Nevertheless, there must be material capable of indicating a meeting of minds and participation in furtherance of the shared intention. Presence, common relationship or association by themselves cannot substitute proof of the common intention required under the said provision. 12. In the present case, the allegation of pointing is undoubtedly a circumstance which the prosecution may prove and rely upon at the time of trial. However, viewed at this preliminary stage, a bare gesture without any accompanying words or other conduct is capable of more than one interpretation. Whether it constituted identification of the injured simpliciter or an instruction to use the vehicle as a weapon is a matter that will have to be determined after the witnesses are tested at the trial. -7- 40.BA-1364-2026 13. The chronology of the prosecution material also cannot be overlooked. The contemporaneous hospital intimation dated 19th March, 2026 records that the injured was struck by a vehicle while he was standing and sustained injuries to both legs. Neither does it name the present applicant nor does it record any gesture or direction by him. The FIR containing the allegation in the case was recorded only on the following day. The statements of the alleged witnesses were recorded on 30th March, 2026. 14. This Court does not propose to pronounce upon the fruitfulness of the first statement at the stage of bail. The timing and evidentiary value will be matters for trial. Nevertheless, the chronology is relevant for the limited purpose of assessing whether the continued pre-trial detention of the applicant is presently necessary. 15. The earlier quarrel and the statements concerning the subsequent confrontation provide the background to the occurrence. They do not, without further evidence, conclusively demonstrate that the applicant shared the intention of the driver to run the vehicle into the injured. Similarly, ownership of the vehicle and departure from the spot are relevant circumstances but cannot, at this stage, bridge the gap in relation to the -8- 40.BA-1364-2026 applicant's shared intention. The gravity of the injury primarily reflects the consequence of the act of the driver. It does not, by itself, establish the mental element attributable to the passenger. 16. Another important circumstance that needs to be taken into consideration is the completion of the investigation. The vehicle has already been seized and the charge sheet has already been filed. The applicant has continued to be in custody since 25th March, 2026 and is stated to have no criminal antecedents. His further custodial interrogation is not required. The apprehension of influencing the injured or the eye-witnesses can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. 17. In these circumstances, without expressing any final opinion on the applicability of Sections 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, a case for releasing the applicant is made out. Hence, the following order : ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.197 of 2026, registered with Bidkin Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural) for the offences punishable under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya -9- 40.BA-1364-2026 Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. till framing of charge and thereafter shall regularly attend each and every effective date before the trial court. b) The applicant shall not enter the village/locality in which the informant ordinarily resides, except for attending the proceedings before the Trial Court or reporting to the Investigating Agency, for a period of three months from the date of his release or till framing of charge, whichever is earlier. Before his release, he shall furnish to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court the address at which he will reside during the said period and his mobile number, and shall intimate any change thereof. c) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if they possess passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of their release. -10- 40.BA-1364-2026 e) The applicant shall not involve themselves in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. g) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale