1 38.BA-484-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 484 OF 2026 PRADIP SAMBHAJI MORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … Advocate for Applicant : Adv. Pallavi Kante APP for Respondents/State : Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh … CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 27th JULY 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.428/2025 registered with Kavthemahankal Police Station, District Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(B), 109, 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 37(1), (3) 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the Informant resides along with his family members at village Kongnoli, Taluka Kavthe- 2 38.BA-484-2026.doc Mahankal. He is acquainted with accused No.8 – Atul, with whom there were petty disputes. On 11.11.2025, at about 4.50 p.m., the Informant’s brother Mansur made a phone call stating that while he was travelling with his wife Saisha in a Fortuner vehicle bearing No. MH-04/EQ-0448 towards the hospital, upon reaching near Bamane Corner, Salgare, accused No.8 – Atul obstructed their car, hurled abuses, and assaulted them. Therefore, Informant told his brother Mansur to lodge the report. Thereafter, Informant along-with his wife Karishma went to Salgare. At that time, accused No.8 – Atul left the spot through his Baleno Car. At that time, Rahul Kamble and his wife Anisha Kamble were present. Accused No.8 – Atul has also abuses and beaten to them. Accordingly, Informant along-with his wife, Mansur along-with his wife and Rahul Kamble along-with his wife through Fortuner went to police station to lodge report. At about 7.30 p.m., the Informant’s brother Mansur and his wife further Rahul Kamble and his wife went inside the police station to lodge the report and informant and his wife Karishma were sitting in the Fortuner parked on the road which goes to the Vidyanagar. At about 08:00 p.m., after conversing with Sanjay Koli and Shahaji Dodmise, the Informant, while approaching his Fortuner vehicle, was accosted by the accused who arrived in two cars. They hurled abuses and threatened the Informant, stating that unless he called back his brother, he would not be spared. Thereafter, accused No.1 – Ravi, along with the other accused, began assaulting the Informant with sticks and kick blows. At that time, accused No.3 – Lokesh, accused No.4 – Mahaveer @ Mahadev Bhandare, and accused No.5 – 3 38.BA-484-2026.doc Somnath Davare caught hold of the Informant’s hands. Accused No.1 – Ravi, exhorting to kill the Informant, took out a knife and assaulted him in the stomach. The present accused No.2 – Pradip also assaulted the Informant with a knife on the left side of his rib. Due to the hue and cry raised by his wife Karishma, all the accused fled from the spot. Thereafter, the Informant’s brother and the police reached the place of incident. The Informant was first admitted to the Sub- District Hospital, Kavthe-Mahankal, and subsequently shifted to the Civil Hospital, Miraj. Accordingly, Informant has lodged the report against the accused. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the present crime only with intention of wreaking vengeance. The allegations are levelled only to attract stringent provisions. The injuries sustained are simple in nature. There exists a discrepancy between two injury certificates, one issued by the Sub-District Hospital, Kavthemahankal, and the other by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Miraj. The certificate issued by GMC, Miraj, records two simple injuries, whereas the certificate issued by the Sub-District Hospital notes three injuries. The other allegations against the Applicant are not substantiated by any cogent evidence. The memorandum of recovery does not disclose any knife bearing blood stains allegedly recovered at the instance of the Applicant. Similarly, the clothes seized do not bear any blood stains. These recoveries have been deliberately fabricated by the Investigating Officer with the sole intention of implicating the 4 38.BA-484-2026.doc Applicant in the alleged crime. They constitute concocted offences planted by the Investigating Officer. The Applicant has only one criminal antecedent, which has been duly disclosed in the affidavit of disclosure. In that case, the Applicant was acquitted way back in the year 2024. There is no evidence to connect the Applicant with the crime. Apart from the aforesaid, the Applicant has no other offences registered against him. The Applicant was arrested on 12.11.2025. The investigation has since been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the Applicant in continued custody. The Applicant is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence he may be released on bail. 5. As against this, the learned APP strongly opposes the application on the ground that the Applicant is involved in the serious offence of attempt to murder, which is punishable with life imprisonment. The Applicant has been directly attributed with the major role of assault by means of a knife, resulting in grievous injury. The knife and clothes have been recovered. The absence of blood stains thereon is a matter to be appreciated during trial, and the Applicant cannot take advantage of the same. The Applicant has one prior crime, which though resulted in acquittal, shows the criminal tendency of the Applicant. Apart from the Applicant, all other co- accused are also history-sheeters. There is every likelihood that, if the Applicant released on bail, he may again indulge in identical offences and threaten the Complainant and her family members. Hence the 5 38.BA-484-2026.doc application may be rejected. 6. I have gone through the charge-sheet filed in the present crime. A perusal of the medical certificate issued by the Sub-District Hospital, Kavthemahankal, as well as the injury certificate of the Complainant, Mohsin Jamadar, issued by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Miraj, reveals a serious discrepancy. The final injury certificate records a grievous injury in the form of a fracture, along with two other simple injuries mentioned as stab wounds. The injury certificate issued by GMC, Miraj, shows only two incised wounds and the nature of injuries is as simple. Surprisingly, the grievous injury shown in the final injury certificate is not mentioned in the certificate issued by GMC, Miraj. Thus the allegations of assault by means of a knife attributed to the present Applicant are themselves doubtful. The other co-accused are attributed a major role in the assault along with the present Applicant. It cannot be therefore concluded that the Applicant alone is responsible for the injuries sustained by the Complainant. However, these observations are prima facie in nature and are made only for the purpose of deciding the present application and the same shall not influence the trial Court. The Applicant was arrested on 12.11.2025 and is behind bars since then. The investigation is completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. Taking into consideration that the trial will take its own time to conclude, further incarceration of the Applicant would serve no fruitful purpose. The Applicant has other criminal antecedents which, however, the same has resulted in acquittal vide judgment dated 6 38.BA-484-2026.doc 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 134/2018. The apprehensions of the learned APP can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions upon the Applicant. Hence the following order : ORDER (A) The Applicant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.428/2025 registered with Kavthemahankal Police Station, District Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(B), 109, 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 37(1), (3) 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. (B) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at Kavthemahankal Police Station, District Sangli, on 1st day of every month till the conclusion of the trial. (C) The Applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and he shall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court. (D) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or attempt to influence or threaten any witness in any manner. A single incident of such conduct would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the present applicant. (E) The Applicant, upon being released on bail, shall furnish his 7 38.BA-484-2026.doc residential address, contact number, and copies of his Aadhaar / PAN Cards to the Investigating Officer as well as trial Court, and shall also provide the names, addresses, and contact numbers of his close relatives for the purpose of record and verification. (F) The bail application is allowed in the above terms and stands disposed of. MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE NAJEEB..