appln36.2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 36 OF 2026 APPLICANT :- State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Janefal, Tq. Mehkar, District Buldhana. ..VERSUS.. NON- APPLICANTS (Accused) :- 1) Gajanan Laxman Shewale, Aged about 58 years. 2) Rameshwar Gajanan Shewale, Aged about 31 years, Both r/o Indira Nagar, Janefal, Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms. Dipali Sapkal, APP for Applicant/State. Mr. Ved.R. Deshpande, counsel for non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE J. DATE : 07 / 10 /2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the present application filed under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the prosecution 2026:BHC-NAG:13519 appln36.2026.odt 2 seeks cancellation of bail granted by this Court on 16/03/2026 in Criminal Application (ABA) No. 112 of 2026, whereby the non- applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 397 of 2025 registered with Police Station Janefal, Tq. Mehkar, District Buldhana, for the offence punishable under Sections 352, 351(3), 351(2), 296, 191(3), 191(2), 190, 118(2), 189(2), 118(1), 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned APP canvassed that, on 16/03/2026, this Court passed an order in Criminal Application (ABA) No. 112 of 2026 and enlarged the non-applicants on anticipatory bail, subject to the condition that, to the extent of recovery of the weapon, the presence of the applicants shall be treated as custody within the meaning of Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. However, the applicants have not produced the weapon, namely the knife which was allegedly used while committing the crime and inflicting injury upon Smt Kusumbai Narayan Shewale, wife of injured Narayan Shewale. Therefore, according to the learned APP, the applicants have breached the condition of bail. Therefore, it is necessary to cancel the bail and custodial interrogation of both the non-applicants is necessary. appln36.2026.odt 3 4. Per contra, Mr. V.D. Deshpande, counsel appearing for non-applicants, invited the attention of this Court in paragraph-5 of the order dated 16/03/2026, wherein this Court observed as under :- 5. Though, the applicant allegedly assaulted on the person of complainant by means of a knife, there is no lacerated or incise injury or even bleeding injury. The injury on the person of the complainant is described as minimal swelling/hematoma on her head. So far as the injury on the person of the husband of the complainant is concerned, he has suffered a fracture. The incident arose out of a civil dispute. The applicant to whom the assault by means of knife has been attributed is 62 years old. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the complainant, prima facie, the possibility of exaggeration of the facts by the complainant cannot be ruled out more particularly when there is a delay of three days in lodging the FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the weapon namely knife was not being used by the non- applicants while committing the crime, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the present non-applicants is not at all required. He further submits that non-applicants have not breached any of the terms and conditions of the bail order. Hence, he prays for rejection of the application. 6. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the record. During the course of appln36.2026.odt 4 arguments, learned APP produced the copy of charge-sheet for perusal of this Court. 7. Needless to say that, on 19/11/2025, the informant Smt. Kusum Narayanrao Shewale (injured), lodged an oral report with Janefal Police Station, alleging that on 16/11/2025, when her son Abhishek was standing near Indira Chowk, the non-applicants came there and started abusing her son. When her husband intervened, the present non-applicant No.2 - Rameshwar Gajanan Shewale, took out a knife and assaulted her on head, due to which she sustained the injuries. The informant further alleged that present non-applicant No.1- Gajanan Laxman Shewale also assaulted her husband with an iron rod. 8. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of injured Narayan Laxman Shewale, wherein he stated that, when the accused persons were abusing them in filthy language, at that time, the non-applicant No.1 Gajanan Laxman Shewale, came there holding an iron rod, while his son, non-applicant No2 - Rameshwar Gajanan Shewale, came there and assaulted his wife (informant), with a knife on the upper side of her right ear, due to which blood started oozing. The injured appln36.2026.odt 5 Kusum Narayan Shewale (informant) was referred to the Primary Health Centre, Janefal. The Medical Officer examined the informant and issued an injury certificate, wherein it has been stated that she had sustained a simple injury, namely, a lacerated swelling wound measuring 3 x 1 cm. The Medical Officer did not notice any sharp or incised injury on the person of the informant Kusumbai. Thus, the nature of the injury sustained by the informant does not corroborate the allegation of assault by means of a knife. 9. The prosecution has not disputed about the injury sustained by the husband of the informant with an iron rod. However, considering the nature of the injury sustained by the informant, it does not appear, prima-facie, that non-applicants were holding knife at that time of incident, as the nature of injuries noticed by the Medical Officer did not disclose any sharp or incised injury on the person of the informant. 10. Therefore, I am of the view that, custodial interrogation of the present non-applicants is not at all required. It is further evident from the record that, after being enlarged on anticipatory bail, the non-applicants appear to have cooperated with the Investigating Officer and, upon on completion of investigation, the appln36.2026.odt 6 charge-sheet has already been filed. 11. In view of the above, I do not find that the prosecution has made out any substantial ground for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court on 16/03/2026. The present application, therefore, deserves to be rejected. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following order. ORDER The criminal application is rejected. No order as to costs. (JUDGE.) rkn Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 19:17:57