IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 22 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1132 OF 2026 RITESH RADHAKRISHNA GAIKWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. Mazhar A. Jahagirdar Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 345 of 2026, registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. First Information Report shows occurrence of the incident on 06.05.2026 at about 12.30 p.m., in which the Informant is said to have been assaulted by the present Applicant with an iron rod on his knee, resulting in a fracture injury. There is an allegation against the co-accused of using a brick in order to assault the Informant. 3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is a student and that there is a counter report in respect of the said incident. He 22 ABA 1132.2026.odt 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:43671 also submits that there is a delay of two days in lodging the report, which creates a possibility of over-implication, and the role attributed to the Applicant is exaggerated. 4. Learned APP opposed the grant of protection to the Applicant by referring to the statements recorded during the course of investigation. He drew attention of the Court to the transcript of the CCTV footage, which shows the involvement of the Applicant and the co-accused in the said assault on the Informant. 5. Prima facie, it shows that there is a counter report lodged in respect of the same incident. Though statements of witnesses are recorded, the transcript of the CCTV footage does not show the Applicant using any weapon to assault the Informant, whereas the co-accused is shown using a brick to assault the Informant. There is a delay of two days in lodging the report and, hence, this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the Applicant that this could be a case of over-implication. Since no weapon is seen to have been used by the Applicant, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Application is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest of Applicant in connection with 22 ABA 1132.2026.odt 2 of 3 Crime No. 345 of 2026, registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (v) He further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. (vi) The Applicant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 01.10.2026 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as and when called by the Investigating Officer. 6. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 22 ABA 1132.2026.odt 3 of 3