45-BA-771-26.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 45 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 771 OF 2026 Madhav Vishwanath Bendrikar VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...... Mr. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S.D. Ghayal, Addl.P.P. for Respondent-State ...... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 22 JUNE, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP Mr. S.D. Ghayal for respondent-State. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with Crime No.270 of 2025 registered with Naigaon Police Station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), 109, 351(2), 351 (3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution is that on 29.12.2025, the informant at about 4.30 a.m. was feeding cattle in the cattle shade adjacent to his house at village Bendri. The applicant and the accused persons approached informant and demanded that he withdraw the criminal case instituted against Santosh Bendrikar at the instance of his wife Uma. It is further alleged that the applicant with the other co-accused poured petrol on informant and set him on fire using matchstick. Informant was admitted 2026:BHC-AUG:24653 45-BA-771-26.odt 2 in Vishnupuri Govt. Hospital. Resultantly, FIR was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in fact, it is the case of suicide and because of the previous enmity, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He submits that the applicant is aged about 58 years and that the principal allegations are directed against co-accused Santosh Bendrikar. According to him, no overt act is attributed to the present applicant either of pouring petrol on the deceased or of setting him ablaze. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 29.12.2025. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted. On these grounds, he seeks grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposes the application. He submits that there are two dying declarations on record, including one recorded by the learned Magistrate, and both are consistent with each other. According to the prosecution, the present applicant cannot claim absence of participation, as the material collected during investigation, particularly the dying declarations, specifically attributes to him the role of catching hold of the deceased while the incident was being executed. It is, therefore, submitted that the role attributed to the applicant is similar to that of the other co-accused persons. Considering the gravity of the offence and the consistent dying declarations, learned APP prays for rejection of the application. 45-BA-771-26.odt 3 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and other material placed on record. 7. At the outset, I do not find any substance in the contention that the applicant deserves indulgence on the ground of old age. The investigation papers indicate that the applicant is about 58 years old and, in the facts of the present case, the said circumstance by itself does not constitute a ground for grant of bail. As regards the role attributed to the applicant, a prima facie perusal of the material collected during investigation, particularly the two dying declarations of the deceased, reveals that a specific role has been assigned to him. The deceased has consistently stated that the present applicant had caught hold of him during the incident. Significantly, both the dying declarations, including the one recorded by the learned Magistrate, are consistent on this material aspect. 8. At this stage, the dying declarations cannot be discarded or subjected to a meticulous examination. Prima facie, they indicate active participation of the applicant in the commission of the offence. The role attributed to the applicant is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Santosh Bendrikar and Shivkumar Bendrikar. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the specific role assigned to the applicant, and the consistency in the dying declarations, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Consequently, the application deserves to be rejected. 45-BA-771-26.odt 4 Hence, the following order : ORDER (i) The Bail Application stands rejected. (ii) Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present bail application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order while deciding the case on its own merits. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane