1 37 BA 1049.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1049/2026 (Harshal Moreshwar Kuthe 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. C. B. Barve, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A. Badar, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 01/09/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 731/2025 registered with Police Station Kapil Nagar, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25/10/2025, the deceased namely Rajesh Orekar was driving the four wheeler car and he along with his friends were returning from Mansar. While returning between 09.30 to 10.00 p.m. the informant dropped his friends namely Anna Sahare and Sanju. While the informant and deceased were returning from Mahada Quarters, 2 37 BA 1049.26 informant’s car caused damaged to a E-rickshaw. The owner of the E-rickshaw came out of the house and started abusing the informant and the deceased. The informant and deceased stated that they will compensate for the damage caused to the E-rickshaw. However, the owner called and informed someone about the accident, thereafter around 8 persons came to the spot and started beating the informant and the deceased. While the deceased was running away, the accused persons chased and inflicted multiple injuries on him with a knife. The informant took the deceased to Mayo Hospital for treatment, where the Doctor declared him dead. Based on this information, the first information report was registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the role of the applicant in the present crime is only limited to the fact that the applicant was holding a knife and nothing more than that. He invited my attention to the statement of eyewitness namely Rajani who stated that on 25/10/2025, when she was at her home, she heard the commotion in front of her house, accordingly she went out of her house and saw that Hani Thakur and Kalpesh were 3 37 BA 1049.26 inflicing injuries on the neck of deceased whereas Lucky Waghmare and Akash Chutka were inflicting injuries on the hands of deceased with the help of knife. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, he was present on the spot, holding knife in his hand. However, there is no overt act on the part of the applicant. The postmortem report shows that there are three incise wounds which has allegedly been inflicted by the Hani Thakur, Kalpesh Rabha, Lucky Waghmare and Akash Chutka. Apart from this material, there is no other material on record. He further invited my attention to the statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) of the eyewitness namely Rajani, wherein she has stated that the applicant was having knife in his hand. However, even in the said statement no overt act has been shown so far as the present applicant is concerned. The offence was committed in a spur of moment as the deceased and the informant came in a drunken condition and gave dash to one E-rickshaw with their car. Accordingly, the said E-rickshaw was damaged and thereafter the old aged couple came outside of their house and they called the accused persons. There was no 4 37 BA 1049.26 intention on the part of the applicant to cause death or injuries to the victims. However, even if the presence of the applicant is marked on the spot of incident, there is no overt act on his part. Under such circumstances, he submits that this Court by order dated 06/03/2026 has granted bail to one of the accused namely Gourav in Criminal Application No 209/2026, therefore the learned counsel claims parity. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that so far as the accused Gourav is concerned, his role is altogether different. He was having wooden log in his hand. The applicant on the other hand was present with the other co- accused persons on the spot, having knife in his hand. Under such circumstances, the applicant cannot rely on the order of this Court dated 06/03/2026 and claim parity. Therefore, the applicant has actively participated in the crime. There is also recovery of knife from the applicant under Section 23 of the BSA. Under such circumstances, he submits that considering the seriousness of the offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5 37 BA 1049.26 6. I have considered the rival submissions. I have gone through the first information report, the statement of witnesses and the postmortem report. It appears that, Pintu who is the friend of the deceased Rajesh has registered the first information report. The name of the present applicant is mentioned in the first information report. The informant was along with the deceased at the relevant time, and he has alleged that the informant and the deceased while driving their car, has given dash to a E- rickshaw thereby causing damage. However, two old aged came from the house, and they started abusing the deceased and the informant. Thereafter, one of them persons called and informed someone about the incident, after which all the accused persons gathered on the spot, and they started beating the informant and deceased. It further appears that, so far as the statement of eyewitness is concerned, it appears that, the present applicant was holding the knife, however there is no mention about him using the knife. Only his presence was marked at the spot. However, it is Hani Thakur, Kalpesh, Lucky Waghmare and Akash Chutka who has inflicted injuries with the help of knife on the deceased. There are three incise wounds on 6 37 BA 1049.26 the deceased and two abrasions. Considering the role of the applicant, which could be gathered from the statement of eyewitness, it is clear that, the applicant has not actively participated in the incident as no overt act is attributed to him. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant has made out a case to grant bail. It is needless to mention that, so far as the order passed by this Court in respect of Gourav is concerned, it is not applicable to the present applicant since the present applicant's name has appeared in the first information report as well as he was holding a knife in his hand. Hence the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Harshal Moreshwar Kuthe be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 731/2025 registered with Police Station Kapil Nagar, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police 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 7 37 BA 1049.26 evidence. (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. 7. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 8. 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: 02/09/2026 17:25:07