-1- 955-BA-1552-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1552 OF 2026 ROHIT DINKAR YADAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe APP for Respondent - State : Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. With the assistance of both learned counsel, I have also perused the copy of the charge-sheet annexed to the present application. 2. The present applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R. No. 320 of 2026, dated 2nd May, 2026. The present applicant came to be arrested on 2nd May, 2026 and since then he is in custody. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that in all there are six accused persons, out of which, one accused by name Dinkar is granted ad-interim relief in anticipatory bail by this Court. Accused Nos.4 and 5, who are 2026:BHC-AUG:45940 -2- 955-BA-1552-2026 women, have already been released on bail. Accused No.6 is also released on bail by the learned Sessions Court at Shrirampur. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that there is a civil dispute over agricultural lands and house property between the family of the applicant and the informant. The litigation has travelled all the way from the Trial Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court and there are several orders passed. It is alleged in the FIR that the present applicant along with his friends, who are co- accused in the present offence, had approached the informant and offered him to settle the entire civil dispute. It is alleged that the applicant removed a pistol and pointed it at the informant’s head and then carried him forcibly to one factory. It is further alleged that, within the premises of the said factory, the informant was brutally assaulted by the present applicant and the other co- accused persons with the aid of weapons such as belt and iron rod as well as by fists and blows. The informant has sustained injuries. As far as, the present applicant is concerned, the allegations against him in the entire FIR is, (i) he approached the informant and offered him the talks for settlement; (ii) he pointed a gun on the head of the informant with the help of the other co-accused persons and took him to the factory premises; and (iii) the present applicant with the aid of iron rod assaulted the informant on both -3- 955-BA-1552-2026 legs and calves. The other co-accused persons also assaulted the informant. Co-accused Dinkar, who has been granted ad-interim relief in anticipatory bail, is alleged to have assaulted the informant with the help of belt on his back and toe. The other accused Appasaheb Gaware is alleged to have assaulted the informant on his legs, neck and back with the help of wooden stick. The other two ladies, who were present, allegedly assaulted with kicks and fists and also hurled abuses to the informant. All the accused persons alleged to have given threat of life to the informant and also warned him that, if he did not vacate the house property today itself, then his entire family would be murdered. When the informant agreed to vacate the house, he was then taken back and was dropped near his residential house. 5. As the informant had sustained injuries due to the alleged assault, he was taken to the hospital, where his statement was recorded by the police and the present FIR came to be registered. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially, the offence was registered under Sections 137(2), 118(2), 118(1) 352, 351(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. However, a day later, the offence under -4- 955-BA-1552-2026 Section 109 of the BNS has been added. He submits that the ingredients of Section 109 of BNS are attributed to the present offence for the simple reason that the injury certificate which is forming part of the charge-sheet mentions all the injuries as abrasions and bruises. He argues that role that has been assigned to the present applicant pertains to an assault on the legs and calves, which cannot be said to be a vital parts of the body. He submits that the applicant has been arrested on 2nd May, 2026 and since then he is in custody. He submits that the accused, who has assaulted the foot of informant, where the medical injury makes a reference to the X-ray opinion that there is a fracture to the frontal toe is caused by accused Dinkar, who has been granted ad-interim relief in anticipatory bail. Accused No.6 is also released on bail, while other two accused persons, who are ladies, have also been granted bail. He thus submits that, the application be allowed and the applicant be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is direct and substantial role attributed to the present applicant. She argues that the entire offence has been initiated at the instance of the present applicant and the co-accused persons are the friends of present applicant. The First Information Report specifically describes the threat given -5- 955-BA-1552-2026 to the informant with the aid of a pistol by the present applicant and he was forcibly removed and then assaulted with an iron rod by the present applicant. She also submits that there is an attempt of strangulating the informant at the hands of the present applicant. She submits that the medical evidence shows multiple injuries including grievous injuries. In respect of the dispute between the parties over the house property and civil proceedings does not lessen the gravity and the criminal liability of the alleged offence against the present applicant. She further submits that the applicant is a resident of the same village where the informant and his family members are residing. In that eventuality, there is every possibility that the applicant may threaten and pressurize the informant and his family members and the other witnesses in the offence. She, thus, requests that the application be rejected. 8. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, the submission pertaining to the allegations against the applicant are merely general cannot be accepted. The informant attributes a distinct act to the present applicant at different stages of the occurrence. It is also not possible at this stage to discard the prosecution case merely because a civil dispute is pending between the parties. Such a dispute may furnish a reason for false implication, but it may -6- 955-BA-1552-2026 equally supply the background for the alleged coercion. The respective claims concerning title, possession and the continuation of the civil proceedings cannot be conclusively determined in the present application. No observation in this order shall say to have any effect on or bearing upon the said civil proceedings. 9. Perusal of the medical certificate dated 17th May, 2026 records six injuries. These injuries comprises bruising on the back and chest, bruising with multiple abrasions on the lower back on the right side, bruising on the right side of the chest, bruising with bluish-red discolouration on the right side of the abdomen and both buttocks and swelling of the right foot. Injuries Nos.2, 4 and 6 are termed grievous, the remaining injuries are marked as simple. A fracture of the right foot is recorded in the radiological findings. The medical material, therefore, cannot be reduced to a single injury to the toe or be described as showing only simple injuries. At the same time, the certificate records the injuries collectively. The attribution of each injury to a particular act or assault, as well as the medical basis for its classification will definitely require examination at the time of trial. The objection that the certificate loses its evidentiary value merely because it was issued by a private hospital is misconceived. The another argument pertaining to the police papers recording Section 109 of the BNS, which was -7- 955-BA-1552-2026 added on 3rd May, 2026, on the basis of the alleged allegation also cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. Furthermore, the submission of the learned Advocate as to whether Section 109 of the BNS is applicable or not will need not be taken into consideration at this stage, when this Court is considering the application for bail. 10. Nevertheless, the question presently is whether the further detention of the applicant is necessary, in the facts of the case, the allegations and the role attributed to the present applicant, pending trial. It is a matter of record that the applicant was arrested on 2nd May, 2026 and he has been in custody for nearly five months. The investigation culminating in the charge- sheet against the present applicant is complete. The informant’s statement and the statements of all other material witnesses have already been recorded. The medical documents and certificates pertaining to the informant are also seized. Thus, the entire investigation pertaining to the entire offence is completed. There are no criminal antecedents against the present applicant and there is also no possibility of the applicant being a flight risk. In such circumstances, I am inclined to allow the application by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order : -8- 955-BA-1552-2026 ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant - Rohit Dinkar Yadav shall be released on bail in Crime No. 320 of 2026 registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 137(2), 118(2), 118(1), 189(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act, on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 02:00 p.m. till framing of charge and thereafter shall regularly attend each and every effective date before the trial court, unless their attendance is specifically exempted. b) The applicant 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 applicant shall furnish his current residential address and mobile number to the Investigating 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. -9- 955-BA-1552-2026 d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court and, if he posses passport, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of their release. e) The applicant shall not involve himself 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