SEEMA BABRUWAN RATHOD AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ABA/1013/2026 · 2026-09-24
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11439 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11439 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1013 OF 2026 Seema Babruwan Rathod And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Mr. S. K. Chavan, Advocate for applicants Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for respondent-State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :-
1. Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0205 of 2026 registered with Sonpeth Police Station, Dist. Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. First Information Report indicates that an incident has occurred on 28.05.2026 in which the present applicants and co-accused said to have been assaulted the informant and witness.
3.
Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that there are disputes between the informant and applicant No. 1 and hence, possibility of false/over implication is not ruled out. It is his submission that now charge sheet has been filed and having regard to the nature of 1002-ABA-1013-2026.odt 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:43468
injuries allegedly caused to the informant and witness, this is a fit case to confirm interim relief.
4. Learned APP opposed grant of any relief to the applicants by referring to the statement of informant as well as witness. He also placed reliance on the injury certificate indicating causing of injury to the witness.
5. Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there are matrimonial disputes between informant and applicant No. 1 and as such, possibility for over implication exists. Perusal of the injury certificate shows that one single simple injury was caused to both informant and witness. Since the investigation is over, there is no reason to seek custodial interrogation of the applicants. There is nothing on record to show that applicants abused their liberty while their liberty was protected by order dated 22.06.2026.
6. Hence, application stands allowed in terms of interim relief granted by order dated 22.06.2026.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) B. S. Joshi 1002-ABA-1013-2026.odt 2 of 2