1 35 BA 1292.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1292/2026 (Bhavesh S/o. Ajay Khandagale 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr/Ms. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 12/10/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.262/2024 registered with Police Station Ajni, Dist. Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Sections 3(1)(ii), 2(3), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name of the applicant does not appear in the first information report. During the course of the investigation, the name of the applicant surfaced. Accordingly, an identification parade was conducted during which the 2 35 BA 1292.26 applicant was identified. However, the role of the applicant is merely to the extent of his presence on the spot along with the other accused persons. There is no overt act on the part of the applicant as he has not inflicted any blow with the help of knife. She further submits that, similarly situated persons have already been released by the Trial Court and this Court. She has placed on record the copy of order dated 19/01/2026 passed in Criminal Application (BA) No.1228/2025 of accused Ritik S/o Raju Shelkar. According to learned counsel, the present applicant is similarly situated. The applicant is behind bars since 26/04/2024 i.e. for more than two and a half years and in the said period, one witness has been examined by the prosecution. She further submits that, if bail is granted to the applicant, the applicant shall abide by all the conditions which will be imposed, therefore she prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity, apart from grounds of merits. 4. On the other hand, the learned APP opposes the application and submits that the applicant is not standing on the same footing as Ritik Raju Shelkar. He has invited my attention to the description of the clothes of the 3 35 BA 1292.26 applicant from the CCTV footage. He further stated that same clothes were recovered from the applicant. The unique structured knife has also been recovered from the applicant having a snake shape. By that knife, 4 injuries have been inflicted by the accused persons on the deceased i.e injury Nos. 1, 3, 5, 13. As knife was recovered at the behest of the applicant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it can be said that even the applicant has inflicted the blows on the deceased. These are the additional circumstances against the applicant, therefore the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 5. Upon consideration of submissions of both the sides, it is not in dispute that the applicant is behind bars since 26/04/2024. It also appears from the submissions that the trial has commenced and one witness has been examined. Upon perusal of the material placed on record against the applicant, it shows that the role attributed to Ritik Raju Shelkar is similar to that of the present applicant. It further appears that the name of the applicant appears in several statements of the eyewitnesses, therefore, it appears that the applicant was present at the spot along with the other accused persons and he was part 4 35 BA 1292.26 of the unlawful assembly. However, specific roles have been attributed to Rajat and Nitesh of giving blows with the help of knife to the deceased. So far as the recovery of knife and clothes are concerned, that can be considered at the stage of trial. It is further to be noted that the applicant is behind bars since 26/04/2024 i.e. for more than two and a half years. Considering all these factors, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind bars, hence the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Bhavesh S/o Ajay Khandagale be released on bail in connection with Crime No.262/2024 registered with Police Station Ajni, Dist. Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Sections 3(1)(ii), 2(3), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. 5 35 BA 1292.26 (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer. (v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial on even a single date or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 7. The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 16:51:00