-1- 941-BA-1904-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1904 OF 2026 1. Shivraj S/o. Govind Rathod 2. Bhimrao S/o. Govind Rathod 3. Sahebrao S/o. Govind Rathod … Applicants (Accused) Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ..... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ashok Dinkar Raut APP for Respondent - State : Mr. V. K. Kotecha ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed. 2. The applicants, who are arraigned as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in C.R.No. 97 of 2026, dated 9th May, 2026, for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2), 352 and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are seeking regular bail by way of the present application in connection with the above-referred crime, in which they have been arrested and in custody since 19th May, 2026. 2026:BHC-AUG:45937 -2- 941-BA-1904-2026 3. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the applicants submits that in all there are 09 accused persons in all, out of which, 06 persons have already been released on bail. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, initially on 8th May, 2026, applicant No.1 and the present informant had quarrel on account of demand raised by the present informant with applicant No.1 in respect of an amount of Rs. 18,000/-, which the informant claims to have been lent to applicant No. 1. During that quarrel, applicant No.1 alleged to have slapped the informant and threatened him not to demand any monies. 5 It is further alleged that, on the same day, at around 5:00 p.m., when the informant and his family members were in front of their residential house, at that time, the present applicants along with other co-accused persons came to the spot armed with iron rod, wooden sticks and axe and started assaulting all the family members of the informant. The First Information Report categorically refers to the role played and weapon used by each of the accused persons and also the assault that has been caused to each of the family members with the aid of the weapon that was assigned to the accused persons. After the medical treatment was taken, the FIR came to be registered. -3- 941-BA-1904-2026 6. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the injury certificates annexed to the present charge-sheet are only in respect of Maruti Jadhav, who is the father of the informant and Vanitabai Jadhav, who is the wife of the informant. Apart from that, neither the medical certificates or injury certificates of any other injured is obtained by the prosecution nor their statements appear in the charge-sheet. According to the learned Advocate for the applicants, this very fact of absence of relevant material in the charge-sheet, raises doubt about the prosecution story as to whether this entire incident, as narrated in the FIR, has actually taken place. He argues that the FIR gives description of every accused holding a particular weapon and assaulting a particular individual and causing injury to a particular and specific part of the body. If that is so, then statements of those persons should have been recorded by the investigating agency and also the medical documents pertaining to those injuries ought to have been part of the charge-sheet. He further submits that the applicants are falsely implicated in the alleged offence. 7. He further argues that, going by the prosecution material itself, the medical certificate of Maruti Jadhav shows that there is one swelling injury to the head, which is termed a grievous -4- 941-BA-1904-2026 injury and one injury pertaining to fracture of the nose. Rest all the injuries are simple in nature. The FIR attributes the said injuries being inflicted by applicant Bhimrao and it is alleged that the iron rod was used by the said accused. The medical certificate of the injured Vanitabai Jadhav are also attributed to applicant Bhimrao. However, those injuries are simple in nature. He submits that, during the investigation, the iron rod was recovered from the spot and not at the instance of the present applicants. He submits that there is no C.A. report to suggest that the iron rod recovered from the spot had any bloodstains on it. Thus, he argues that the implication of all the accused persons, without there being any material in support of the First Information Report lodged by the informant itself creates a serious doubt about the prosecution story. He submits that the applicants have been in custody since 19th May, 2026 and six accused persons have already been released on bail. Therefore, the present applicants also deserve to be released on bail. 8. Learned A.P.P. opposes the application and submits that the First Information Report gives the entire narration as to how the alleged offence has been committed by the present applicant. He submits that, all the accused persons were aided with dangerous weapons and they have assaulted the entire family -5- 941-BA-1904-2026 members of the informant. He submits that, the injury certificates shows that there are grievous and fracture injury sustained by the injured witnesses. He, however has no answer when a particular question pertaining to non collection of the injury certificate of other witnesses and statements of injured eye witnesses are not forming part of the charge sheet. He submits that, the arrest of the applicants in May 2026 is not proportionate if the offence that has been alleged against them. He requests for rejection of the bail. 9. I have heard both the learned Advocates and have also perused the documents on record. It is an admitted position that, though the allegations in the FIR are specific that the entire family of the informant has been assaulted with the aid of dangerous weapons like iron rod, an axe and wooden sticks, and they sustained injuries to vital parts of their bodies, yet the prosecution report does not contain the important documents such as the injury certificates of all the injured witnesses. Surprisingly, even the statements of those injured eye-witnesses have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer. This creates a serious dent in the prosecution story. When there is no supporting material for the allegations levelled in the First Information Report, in spite the fact that the investigation is now complete, then it cannot be said that there is sufficient material as on today on record to hold that the -6- 941-BA-1904-2026 applicants have been prima facie involved in the offence. The prosecution may lead evidence and prove the allegations levelled against the present accused persons. As far as, for the purpose of considering the application for bail, the material is insufficient, and therefore, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, the following order : ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicants shall be released on bail in Crime No. 97 of 2026 registered with Umari Police Station, District Nanded, under Sections 109, 118(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, on each furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicants shall attend the trial Court on every date fixed, unless their attendance is specifically exempted. b) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. c) The applicants shall furnish their current residential addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating -7- 941-BA-1904-2026 Officer and the trial Court within seven days of release, intimate any change forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further investigation is required. d) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if they possess passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of their release. e) The applicants shall not involve themselves in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. (iii) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. (iv) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale