1 12.ba.605.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.605 OF 2026 Shriram s/o Sitaram Solanke ..vs.. State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Londhe, Advocate for the applicant. Ms T.H. Udeshi, APP for the State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 25.06.2026. Heard. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.423 of 2024 registered with Hiwarkhed Police Station, District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the wife of the deceased on the allegation that on 27.11.2024 at about 5.30 p.m., her husband was under the influence of liquor and was abusing others. Therefore, many persons gathered there, to whom also he hurled abuses. Consequently, the present applicant and his two sons assaulted the deceased by means of fist and kick blows on various parts of body including his private parts, due to which he died. Hence, the report. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 29.07.2025, when this Court showed disinclination to grant bail to the applicant, the application came to be withdrawn. However, on 17.11.2025, in another bail application filed 2 12.ba.605.2026 by the applicant, this Court disposed of the application as not maintainable as the CA report had not been filed. However, this is the third bail application of the applicant, as the CA report has now been received and was filed by the prosecution on 09.02.2026, which could be gathered from the Roznama dated 09.02.2026. It appears that the applicant filed an application before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court observed that the trial was in progress and the CA report had not been filed, therefore, the application could not be considered at that stage on the ground of change in circumstances. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that though the CA report was on record, the Trial Court conveniently ignored the said report and wrongly observed that it had not been filed on record. The CA report of the deceased depicts that viscera samples were sent for chemical analysis, which shows that the deceased had consumed liquor. In the samples found at Exhibits 1 and 2, 92 and 85 milligrams of Ethyl Alcohol per 100 grams respectively were found. It appears that the deceased was under the influence of liquor, lost control, and fell into a drainage channel. To substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the statements of the eye-witnesses, who stated that when the deceased abused the mob, the applicant and his two sons became annoyed and assaulted the deceased. However, due to loss of control, the deceased fell into the drainage channel, and thereafter, when he tried to get up and retaliate against the assault by the accused persons, he again fell into the drainage channel. Therefore, there was no intention on the part of the applicant, and the case 3 12.ba.605.2026 does not fall under the category of murder. It is submitted that this Court has already granted bail to co- accused Nagesh and, therefore, considering all these aspects, the applicant prayed to be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application on the ground that mere filing of the CA report is not sufficient to enlarge the applicant on bail. This Court has twice shown disinclination to grant bail and, therefore, the third bail application cannot be entertained merely on the ground of filing of the CA report. There are eye-witnesses to the incident, and they have specifically stated that the applicant assaulted the deceased, due to which he fell down. As the trial has commenced and only two witnesses have been examined, the application is prayed to be rejected. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It appears that this is the third bail application of the applicant seeking grant of bail, as liberty was granted to file an application after the CA report was received. Perusal of the CA report shows that the deceased was in a drunken condition. In his viscera samples, Exhibits 1 and 2 contained 92 and 85 milligrams of Ethyl Alcohol per 100 grams respectively. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, and in view of the liberty granted by this Court, the present application can be entertained. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, this Court has already granted bail to Nagesh, who is the son of the applicant, observing that “considering the circumstances under which the alleged incident has taken place, the applicant has made out a 4 12.ba.605.2026 case for grant of bail.” It is also informed that the Trial Court has released another co-accused, Yogesh, who is another son of the applicant, on bail. 8. It appears that the deceased was in a drunken condition and, at the time of the incident, was hurling abuses at the entire mob. Being annoyed by the same, the applicant and his sons tried to pacify him; however, he started abusing them also, due to which they assaulted the deceased. When the deceased tried to get up in retaliation, he again fell into the drainage channel, due to which he sustained injuries on his head and leg, and succumbed to it. The postmortem report shows that the deceased sustained nine injuries on his person. There is no final opinion in the charge-sheet and, therefore, it is very difficult to state anything about the cause of death. Considering the nature of the allegations against the applicant and the fact that the other two co-accused, who are the sons of the applicant, have been released on bail, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.Hence the following order : (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicant Shriram s/o Sitaram Solanke in connection with Crime No.423 of 2024 registered with Hiwarkhed Police Station, District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety in the like amount. (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly 5 12.ba.605.2026 make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (d) The applicant shall not enter into the vicinity of village Hingni (Bu.), Taluka Telhara, District Akola, till culmination of the trial. (e) The applicant shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (f) The applicant shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 9. The observations are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same . 10. All Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti