1 964-BA.1522-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1522 OF 2026 ANKUSH RAMDEV SOMDHANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3420 OF 2026 IN BA/1522/2026 ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. More P. P. APP for Respondent/State : Mr. K. K. Naik. … CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : August 25, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.488/2025, registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(1), 3(5), 49, 54 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 3. A report is lodged by a friend of the deceased Babasaheb Somdhane that Babasaheb was prohibited to enter Jalna district in pursuance of the orders passed by the Criminal Court and he was staying at Konewadi Tq. Chhatrapati 2026:BHC-AUG:38736 2 964-BA.1522-26.odt Sambhajinagar. One Krishna Somdhane wanted to take revenge of Babashaeb. On 20.11.2025 after attending the Court matter at Jalna, when Babasaheb was returning by a car, driven by informant, he was attacked by four persons, armed with the weapons. He was brutally assaulted to death and the assailants fled away. 4. The applicant is arrested on 03.12.2025 in pursuance of above offence. The charge-sheet is filed on 17.02.2026. In this backdrop, learned counsel Mr. More submits that the applicant’s name and the role is not spelt out in the first information report. No incriminating material is collected to indicate any conspiracy to kill Babasaheb, of which applicant was a party. The applicant is falsely implicated due to suspicion. Except calls received after the incident in question from three of the assailants to the applicant is not inculpatory. There was no motive for applicant to take drastic step against Babasaheb. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. would submit that the applicant and accused No. 5 Ankush were keeping watch on the movement of Babasaheb on the fateful day. The applicant was party to the plan and he also had grudge against Babasaheb. He was 3 964-BA.1522-26.odt constantly in touch with other accused by using Baliram’s mobile. The statement of Rajendra, Devidas and Amrut would indicate interest and involvement of the applicant. There are three antecedents against the applicant. The learned APP submits that the bail granted to original accused No.6 Subhash Somdhane by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 cannot be held as parity with the present applicant. He submits that the distinguishing factor between the present applicant and the original accused No.6 is that there was only one single call between accused No.6 and the assailants after the incidents. However, as far as present applicant is concerned, there were twelve calls between the applicant and the assailants throughout the day and the phone calls stopped only after the offence was committed. This is a serious distinguishing factor which the Court should take into consideration. Apart from that, he argues that there was previous enmity between the deceased and the present applicant. He prays for rejection of the bail application. I have also assured the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant. He argues that the law of parity will not apply to the present applicant with original accused No.6. While distinguishing the role and the involvement of the present applicant and accused No.6 who is released on bail by this Court he submits that there was 4 964-BA.1522-26.odt no enmity between accused No.6 and the deceased while the record shows that there was previous enmity between the present applicant and the deceased and there are cases registered against the present applicant by the deceased. He also tried to distinguish the role of the present applicant on the basis of the phone calls made between the present applicant and the assailants. He submits that as far as released accused No.6 is concerned, one single call was received from one single assailant after the incident had taken place, however as far as present applicant is concerned the present applicant had received not less than twelve calls from three different assailants and those calls have only stopped after the incident has taken place. He, therefore, submits that the applicant was instrumental in keeping watch on the deceased on the fateful day and then to provide the location of the deceased to the assailants. If this role would not have been performed then there was every possibility that the alleged incident would not have taken place. He also submits that the presence of the applicant at the time of conspiracy meeting which was held on 19.11.2025 also requires to be taken into due consideration while deciding his bail application. He prays for rejection of the application. 5 964-BA.1522-26.odt 6. Criminal Application filed by the informant to assist the learned A.P.P. is allowed. Learned counsel for the informant has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned A.P.P. 7. The first information report does not spell out name and any role of the applicant. But it indicates rivalry between deceased Babasaheb and Krishna Somdhane. Babasaheb was prohibited from entering Jalna district in pursuance of the Court orders. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are the assailants, who are attributed overt act on the fateful day. They were armed with weapons and the death was due to the injuries inflicted by them. It is nobodies case that applicant was inside the car and monitoring the incident. 8. I have gone through supplementary statement of the informant, wherein role attributed to the applicant is surfaced for the first time. Considering the previous rivalry, the applicant and the co-accused hatched the plan to eliminate Babasaheb and Babasaheb was being followed and watched by them. A call record in between Baliram and applicant is tried to be pitted against the applicant so as to show his involvement. The applicant’s presence near spot of the incident is not seen. A call made cannot be said to be incriminating. 6 964-BA.1522-26.odt 9. It is tried to be contended that applicant was using mobile phone of Baliram and was in touch with other co- accused. It is not corroborated by any material. It would be matter of trial to examine the coordination amongst the applicant and co-accused. I have gone through statement of Rajendra, Devidas and Amrut. It is also necessary to consider the submissions canvassed by learned APP as well as the learned advocate appearing for the original informant. The submissions as far as no enmity between the released accused No.6 and the deceased is incorrect for the reason that the prosecution papers in the charge-sheet demonstrates that there were also cases registered against the said accused No.6 by the deceased. Especially Crime No.476 of 2024 registered with Taluka Jalna Police Station dated 25.07.2024, in which, the released accused No.6 is being shown as accused No.6 for offence punishable mainly under Section 118(1) of B.N.S. along with other offences and name of the informant in the said FIR is deceased Babasaheb Somdhane. Secondly, the submission pertaining to difference in the number of calls received from the assailants also does not make material difference as to whether single call was received or multiple calls were received, that does not placed the present applicant on a higher pedestal compared to the role assigned to original 7 964-BA.1522-26.odt accused No.6. Thus, comparing the role of the present applicant along with released accused No.6, I am satisfied that the law of parity can be applied. 10. There are two criminal cases pitted against the applicant. A stringent condition can be imposed. The applicant is behind bars since 03.12.2025. He deserves to be released on bail. 11. The Bail Application is allowed. 12. The applicant ANKUSH RAMDEV SOMDHANE shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.488/2025, registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(1), 3(5), 49, 54 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, on following conditions : (a) The applicant shall furnish P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount. (b) The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or contact with the prosecution witnesses. (c) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and address to the investigating officer. 8 964-BA.1522-26.odt (d) The applicant shall not enter village Ahankar Deulgaon Tq. & Dist. Jalna till conclusion of the trial. (e) The applicant shall surrender his Aadhar Card and PAN card to the investigating officer. (d) The applicants shall drop a Google pin location from his mobile phone to the IO concerned so as to show his whereabouts everyday. (e) The applicant shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the trial. 13. Criminal Application to assist learned APP is disposed of. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ... vmk/-