938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2669 OF 2026 Mayur Dinkar Nikam …Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar a/w. Mr. Sandeep Gupta, for the Applicant. Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Yadav, learned APP for the State. 2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application, the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 148 of 2026 registered with Panchawati Police Station, Nashik City for the offences punishable under Sections 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and Sections 191(3), 189(4) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 24th September, 2026 938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC skt 3. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 25th August 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Bail Application No. 1612 of 2026. The said paragraph No.2 reads as under :- “2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are as under: On 15.03.2026 at about 9.30 to 10.00 p.m. informant Nilesh Ranmale alongwith his friends Vicky Bhadange, Rahul Ranmale, Sanket Jondhale and Ravi Patil were chitchatting near Hanuman mandir. All of a sudden, 3-4 motorcycles came and stopped near the informant. Harshad Patankar and Mayur Nikam get down from the motorcycle and tightly hold informant's neck. Shravan Pagare pushed the informant and told Harshad that informant is giving their intimation to police and they should not let informant go alive. After that, Harshad Patankar and Rupesh Tajne came towards informant armed with scythe in their hands. Other 4 to 5 unknown persons were also with them. Harshad Patankar said that he will kill informant and Harshad and Rupesh 24th September, 2026 938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC skt started moving towards informant. However, informant forcefully pushed and rescued his neck from Harshad and ran away from the spot. Due to fear of scythe in the hands of Harshad and Rupesh, informant's friends who were present on the spot have not came forward to rescue informant.” 4. Thus, as per prosecution case, co-accused Harshad Patankar and the present Applicant came on a motorcycle where the First Informant and his friends were chitchatting. The present Applicant tightly hold the First Informant’s neck and started giving threats as according to the Applicant and other co-accused, the First Informant and his friends were informing the police about the activities of the Applicant and the co-accused and therefore the First Informant and his friends were assaulted. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant is not involved in the crime. He states that in fact when the incident took place, the Applicant was in Mumabi and false F.I.R. is filed. Page 3 of 5 24th September, 2026 938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC skt 6. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP submits that the Applicant is member of a gang. There are three offences registered against the Applicant out of which two offences were registered in the year 2025 and one in the year 2026. All offences are bodily offences. She points out the observations made in the order dated 25th August 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that two crimes under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 are registered against the Applicant and that the Accused is absconding. She, therefore, submits that the Applicant is not entitled to get the anticipatory bail. 7. Perusal of record shows that the offence is very serious where the Applicant along with co-accused assaulted the First Informant and his friends and threatened them that they would kill them as the First Informant and his friends were informing to the police about the activities of the Applicant and the co-accused. Thus, the offence is very serious. 8. Although, it is the contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant was in Mumbai when the incident took place, there are eye-witnesses to the incident. Page 4 of 5 24th September, 2026 938 ABA-2669-2026.DOC skt 9. There are three offences registered against the Applicant, two of which are of the year 2025 and one is of the year 2026. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed. 11. The observations in this order are made for considering this Anticipatory Bail Application. The learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove and shall decide the case on its own merits. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 24th September, 2026