IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 929 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 451 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1178 OF 2026 1. Machindra @ Devidas Rakhma Kolpe 2. Sathish Bapu Kolpe 3. Vishal Babasaheb Kolpe 4. Sagar Babasaheb Kolpe 5. Babasaheb Bhaurao Kolpe 6. Nanasaheb @ Namdev Shivaji Kolpe 7. Haribhau Bhaurao Kolpe 8. Sanjay Babu Kolpe VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Another ... Ms. Siddhi Kothari h/f Mr. K. B. Borde, Advocate for Applicants Mr. M. A. Aher, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. S. S. Jadhav, Advocate for the informant CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 31st JULY, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2. As per the order dated 02.07.2026, the application stands dismissed qua Applicant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7. 3. Applicant Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 8 seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 61/2026, registered with Kopargaon Rural Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 929 ABA 451.2026.odt 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:32301 333, 352, 351(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 119(1), 324(4) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4. The First Information Report indicates that an incident occurred on 18.02.2026 at about 9:30 a.m., during which the present applicants and the co-accused allegedly came to the house of the informant armed with weapons and assaulted the informant and six other persons. There are allegations that the assault was committed with iron rods and sticks, resulting in grievous injuries to some of the witnesses. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that there are admittedly disputes between the parties and, therefore, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. In this regard, she submits that Applicant No. 8, Sanjay, was present at his workplace at the relevant time, which indicates that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has also referred to the injury certificates placed on record by the informant and submitted that the injuries allegedly sustained by the witnesses are not consistent with the allegations of assault. She, therefore, seeks grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants. 6. Learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant have opposed the grant of any protection to the applicants. This Court had called upon the Investigating Officer to verify the factum of Applicant No. 8-Sanjay being present at his workplace at the relevant time. The report submitted by the 929 ABA 451.2026.odt 2 of 5 Investigating Officer indicates that Sanjay was indeed present at his workplace at the time of occurrence. Learned APP, however, submits that merely because the name of Sanjay may have been wrongly mentioned in the First Information Report, it cannot be said that the incident itself did not occur. In support of his submission, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the injury certificates placed on record, which indicate that an incident of assault had taken place. According to him, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the purpose of recovery of the weapons used in the commission of the offence. 7. Learned Advocate for the informant has also opposed the grant of any relief to the applicants, contending that the accused persons came armed with weapons to the house of the informant, thereby showing that they were the aggressors, and caused grievous injuries to the informant and the witnesses. 8. Prima facie, upon perusal of the record, the possibility of Applicant No. 8-Sanjay not being present at the spot at the relevant time cannot be ruled out. At the same time, there is material on record to show that seven persons were assaulted and sustained injuries. Therefore, it cannot be said that the incident in question did not occur. At the most, the material indicates a possibility of over-implication. Having regard to the said possibility, the prima facie material indicates sufficient evidence against Applicant No. 2-Satish and 929 ABA 451.2026.odt 3 of 5 Applicant No. 5-Babasaheb, showing their involvement in the assault on Rajendra and two other witnesses, resulting in grievous injuries. In such circumstances, these applicants are not entitled to any relief, having regard to their prima facie involvement in the crime. 9. As regards Applicant No. 6-Nanasaheb and Applicant No. 8-Sanjay, the allegations against them are not supported by the material available on record. Therefore, the possibility of their over-implication cannot be ruled out. 10. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Application of applicant Nos.6 and 8 is allowed. (ii) Application of applicant Nos.2 and 5 stands rejected. (iii) In the event of arrest of applicant No. 6-Nanasaheb @ Namdev Shivaji Kolpe and applicant No. 8-Sanjay Babu Kolpe in connection with Crime No. 61/2026, registered with Kopargaon Rural Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 333, 352, 351(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 119(1), 324(4), 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iv) They shall attend the concerned police station once in a week. 929 ABA 451.2026.odt 4 of 5 (v) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (vi) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (vii) They are further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. (viii) Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. (ix) Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 929 ABA 451.2026.odt 5 of 5