Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11356 (BOM)

SHASHIKANT ALIAS VINAY NANASAHEB KOKATE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

ABA/1797/2026 · 2026-09-24

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

902-ABA-1797-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1797 OF 2026 Shashikant Alias Vinay Nanasaheb Kokate Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Another Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for Applicant Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondents/State CORAM :R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE :SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 P. C. : 1. This is second bail application seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 190/2026 registered with Police Station Yermala, District Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. First bail application came to be rejected on 18.07.2026 since this Court has shown disinclination to grant relief to present Applicant. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that pursuant to the said order, charge-sheet has been filed and, therefore, there is chance in circumstances. It is his submission on the basis of first information report as well as injury certificate that there is no offence made out against the present Applicant. 2026:BHC-AUG:43463 902-ABA-1797-2026.odt 4. Learned APP drew attention of the Court to the fact that after 18.07.2026, there is no further investigation done in the instant case. It is thus her contention that there is no change in circumstance to entertain the application. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the injury certificate, which forms the part of charge-sheet is dated 13.07.2026. This Court has passed order on 18.07.2026. There is no reason to believe that this certificate was not produced before this Court at that time. In absence of any further investigation being carried out by the investigating agency post order dated 18.07.2026, this Court is of the view that there is no change in circumstance to entertain present second bail application. Entertaining such application, without change in circumstance, would lead to laying down wrong precedent. 6. In view of above, Application stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani