1 41.ba.1161.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1161 OF 2026 Umesh Hanaslal Maraskolhe ..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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.N. Ali, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.B. Badar, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 24.09.2026. Heard. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.165 of 2026 registered with Gondia Rural Police Station, District Gondia for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 118(2), 3(5), 61(2)(a),189(4), 190, 191(1), 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The FIR came to be lodged by the brother of the injured alleging that injured informed him that accused persons assaulted him by means of hammer on the head, and therefore, the report. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the injured informed the informant that accused persons Purushottam, Dinesh and Radhelal have assaulted the injured. According to the learned Counsel, the applicant has not been named in the FIR, however in the statement recorded under Section 180 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the injured named the 2026:BHC-NAG:12754 2 41.ba.1161.2026 applicant and one another person namely Yogesh. It is submitted that the name of the applicant is taken by the injured only in order to implicate as many as persons in the offence as possible and therefore, disclosure made at initial point of time, which was recorded in the FIR, needs to be considered. Further he submits that so far as the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS is concerned, in that the name of the applicant has been taken however, the role attributed to the applicant is merely of presence and no overt act was attributed. As the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed, learned Counsel prayed for allowing the application. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposed the application and submitted that FIR is not an encyclopedia. He submits that the present FIR is based on the hearsay information. At the relevant time, the injured was not in a position to take all the names. However, when the injured became stable, his statement was recorded on the next day of lodging of FIR where he has disclosed the name of the applicant and attributed an overt act that all the accused persons including the applicant assaulted him with the help of hammer and blade. To substantiate his submission, he has invited my attention to the injury certificate, wherein five injuries has been shown, out of which one injury is on the head and the same is said to be a grievous injury. Under such circumstances, he submits that considering the specific role of the applicant coupled with the supportive evidence, the applicant does not deserves to be granted 3 41.ba.1161.2026 bail. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties. Perused the FIR as well as the documents on record. After considering the entire material, it could be gathered that in the FIR, which was registered by the brother of the injured, admittedly, there is no name of the applicant and it was specifically stated that the injured disclosed the name of only three accused persons. So far as the statement of the injured under Section 180 of BNSS is concerned, no doubt, the name of the applicant appears in the statement. However, there is no specific overt act that has been attributed; however, it is stated that all the accused persons with the help of blade have inflicted injuries on him. So far as statement of injured under Section 183 of BNSS is concerned, the name of the applicant has been taken by him. However, the main role is attributed to co-accused Purushottam, who has stated to have inflicted blows on the head with hammer and with the help of blade on the neck and hands of the injured. There is no specific role attributed to the applicant and there are no criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances considering the inconsistencies in the statement, and as no overt act is attributed to the applicant, and that the investigation is complete, charge- sheet has been filed, in my opinion the applicant deserves to be granted bail, hence, the following order. (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicant Umesh Hanaslal Maraskolhe in connection with Crime No.165 of 2026 registered 4 41.ba.1161.2026 with Gondia Rural Police Station, District Gondia for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 118(2), 3(5), 61(2)(a),189(4), 190, 191(1), 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (d) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (e) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for one date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 7. The observations are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same . 8. All Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 15:53:30