MAHESH MOTIRM INGALE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS WASHIM CITY, TQ. AND DIST. WASHIM
ABA/824/2026 · 2026-09-24
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11258 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11258 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 29 ABA 824.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 824/2026 (Mahesh Motiram Ingale Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.R. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Mr. H. D. Marathe, APP for non-applicant/State.
CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR,
J .
DATED : 24/09/2026. Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.774/2026 registered with Police Station Washim, Dist. Washim for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 333, 351(2), 351(3), 352, 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 24.07.2026 at about 00:15 hours, the informant, along with her brother-in-law’s wife, namely Kalpana, was waiting in the hall of her house for her brother-in-law, Sagar Bhaurao Kharbalkar. Upon hearing a knock on the door and assuming that the said Sagar had arrived, Kalpana opened the door and found accused Suraj Raut, along with Omkar Raut, Rajesh Bhoyar, the applicant-
2 29 ABA 824.26.odt Mahesh Ingle and Gajanan Dube, standing outside. It is alleged that accused Suraj Raut immediately assaulted Kalpana on her head with an iron rod with an intention to kill her, resulting in bleeding injury. Thereafter, he assaulted her with fist blows on her chest. When the informant intervened, accused Suraj assaulted her on the neck with a weapon, thereby causing injuries to her. At that time, accused Omkar Raut was holding a pipe in his hand, while the other accused persons, including the present applicant, were allegedly creating terror in the locality. The informant immediately closed the door. Thereafter, accused Suraj broke the window glass of the house with a weapon, due to which the informant sustained a bleeding injury to the finger of her right hand. It is further alleged that the accused persons damaged the air-conditioner of the house, abused the informant in loud voices and threatened to kill her brother-in-law. On the basis of the said incident, the First Information Report came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, though the applicant’s name appears in the First Information Report, the main allegations are against Suraj Raut. Though the applicant had accompanied Suraj Raut
3 29 ABA 824.26.odt along with the other co-accused, it is submitted that the applicant had not actively participated in the entire incident. He further submits that, the applicant was standing outside the house and had not entered the house of the informant. The allegation against the applicant is only that he was creating terror in the vicinity along with the other co-accused persons. Therefore, he submits that, considering the nature of the allegations, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP opposes the application and submits that, though the main allegations are against Suraj Raut, the present applicant, along with the other co-accused, had accompanied him.
It is submitted that they had not only actively participated in the incident but had also created terror in the vicinity, due to which the people in the locality ran here and there. The role of the present applicant cannot be separated from that of the other accused, as they constituted an unlawful assembly and committed the offence with a common object. The learned APP further submits that two crimes have been registered against the applicant. Under such circumstances, the learned APP submits that the applicant may not be granted anticipatory bail. 4 29 ABA 824.26.odt
6. I have considered the rival submissions. Upon perusal of the First Information Report, primarily, it appears that though the applicant had accompanied the main accused, namely, Suraj Raut there is no overt act attributed to the present applicant. It further appears that the applicant was standing outside the house and allegedly tried to create terror in the vicinity. Apart from the said allegation, there are no further allegations of assault against the present applicant. There are two injured persons; however, both the injured persons have specifically attributed the assault to the main accused i.e. Suraj Raut. It further appears that the applicant is having criminal antecedents. However, the mere existence of criminal antecedents, by itself, cannot be a ground to reject the application for bail. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following
order:
ORDER (I) Application is allowed and disposed of. (II) In the event of arrest, the applicant Mahesh Motiram Ingale be released on bail in connection with Crime No.774/2026 registered with Police Station Washim, Dist.
5 29 ABA 824.26.odt Washim for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 333, 351(2), 351(3), 352, 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. (III) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. or as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (IV) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
9. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
10. The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations.
( M. M. NERLIKAR
, J.)
Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 11:10:25