IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 29 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1489 OF 2026 MANGAL GIRDHAR GUJAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Majit S. 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. 0097/2026, registered with Azadnagar Police Station, District Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 125, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 37(1), 37(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. 2. The First Information Report indicates that an incident had occurred on 25.05.2026 at about 01:30 a.m. On the next day, at about 11:30 p.m., the present Applicant, along with the co-accused, is alleged to have come to the spot and assaulted the Informant, causing serious injuries to him. 3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that, in respect of the said incident, a counter-report came to be lodged, which was prior in time. By referring to the contents of the said report, he contends that the presence of 29 ABA 1489.2026.odt 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:43668 the Applicant is not found at the spot at the relevant time. According to him, this could be a case of over-implication. He further submits that there is no allegation against the Applicant of having used any weapon in the assault and, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. 4. Learned APP opposed the grant of any protection to the Applicant by referring to the allegations in the First Information Report as well as the injury certificate of the Informant. 5. Prima facie, perusal of the police papers indicates that the presence of the present Applicant at the spot is doubtful. First of all, the report lodged in respect of the said incident does not show the presence of the Applicant. This fact is further supported by the transcript of the CCTV footage, wherein the Applicant is not seen at the spot or participating in the incident in question. Having regard to this fact, the possibility of this being a case of over- implication cannot be ruled out. Since there is no allegation against the Applicant of having used any weapon, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Application is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest of Applicant in connection with Crime No. 0097/2026, registered with Azadnagar Police Station, District Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 125, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 29 ABA 1489.2026.odt 2 of 3 and under Sections 37(1), 37(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 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. 6. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 29 ABA 1489.2026.odt 3 of 3