40-BA-753-26.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 40 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 753 OF 2026 1. Balaji Maruti Ravikar alias Tengetol 2. Dnyaneshwar Maruti Ravikar @ Tengetol VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1829 OF 2026 IN BA/753/2026 Laxman Somnath Hingmire VERSUS Balaji Maruti Ravikar Alias Tengetol ...... Mr. V.P. Golewar, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S.D. Ghayal, Addl. P.P. for Respondent-State Mr. S.C. Swami, Advocate for the Informant ...... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 22 JUNE, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. V.P. Golewar for the applicants and learned Add. P.P. Mr. S.D. Ghayal for respondent No.1-State. 2. Criminal Application No. 1829 of 2026 is filed by the informant seeking permission to assist APP. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the applicant is permitted to assist APP. The application is accordingly disposed of. 3. By the present application, the applicants seek their release on bail in connection with Crime No.737 of 2025 registered with Udgir Rural Police 2026:BHC-AUG:24481 40-BA-753-26.odt 2 Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Section 109, 308(4), 308 (5), 190, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 1923. 3. Learned counsel Mr. V.P. Golewar for the applicants submits that the present FIR is registered only to give counter blast to the complaint filed by applicant No.2 vide FIR No.687 of 2025. He submits that there is a delay in lodging report, which shows that the report has been lodged as an afterthought. He submits that incident was occurred because of the earlier dispute between the parties. He further submits that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet is already filed. He submits that the accused were arrested on 25.12.2025 and behind the bars for considerable time. Therefore, he prays to allow the application. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.D. Ghayal and learned counsel for the informant strongly oppose the application. It is submitted that the applicants, armed with a deadly weapon, assaulted the informant's father and caused grievous injuries on vital parts of the body. Inviting my attention to the injury certificate and other material collected during investigation, they submit that specific overt acts have been attributed to the applicants. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out. They further submit that, if released on bail, the applicants may influence the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. 40-BA-753-26.odt 3 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the material placed on record. 7. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the allegation against the present applicants is that they assaulted the informant's father by means of a katti and caused injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Though the prosecution relies upon the injury certificate and the recovery effected at the instance of the applicants, it is not disputed that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and is no longer undergoing indoor treatment. 8. The record further indicates that the applicants are in custody since December 2025. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Thus, the presence of the applicants is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. The articles alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence have already been recovered and nothing further remains to be recovered or discovered at the instance of the applicants. In the circumstances, further custodial detention of the applicants does not appear to be necessary. 9. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the completion of investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicants and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution 40-BA-753-26.odt 4 can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. Hence, the following order: ORDER I. The application is allowed. II. Applicants, namely, (1) Balaji Maruti Ravikar alias Tengetol and (2) Dnyaneshwar Maruti Ravikar alias Tengetol, be released on bail in connection with Crime No.737 of 2025 registered with Udgir Rural Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 308(4), 308(5), 190 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing a P.R.Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each, with one solvent surety in the like amount each, subject to the following conditions: [a] The applicants shall not enter Village Shambu Umerga, Taluka Udgir, District Latur, till conclusion of the trial, (b) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the Trial Court on every effective date unless specifically exempted by the Trial Court. (c) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (d) In the event of breach of the condition, it will be open for the prosecution or the complainant to approach the concerned Court for cancellation of bail. 40-BA-753-26.odt 5 III. Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present bail application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order while deciding the case on its own merits. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane