1 66BA1608.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 66 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1608 OF 2026 1] Rameshwar Sukhdev Rajale 2] Vishal Raosaheb Pawar ...Applicants VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...Respondents ... Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke - Advocate for Applicants Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh - APP for the State ... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026 ORAL ORDER : - 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State, and with their assistance, perused the entire charge-sheet. 2. By the present Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 0639 of 2025, dated 24.10.2025, registered with Bidkin Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 45 and 51 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 23.10.2025, and the said Crime was registered on 24.10.2025. 2026:BHC-AUG:40464 2 66BA1608.2026.odt 3. The learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that the names of the present Applicants were mentioned as absconding in the initial charge-sheet and, therefore, the charge-sheet under Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was filed against the present Applicants. However, the present Applicants came to be arrested on 15.03.2026 and 17.03.2026, respectively. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the present Applicants on 08.06.2026. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there exists a political rivalry between two groups in the village. It is alleged that the immediate cause of the occurrence was a dispute concerning the installation of Diwali greeting banners displayed by members of both groups. It is alleged that, on 22.10.2025, accused Rushikesh made a threatening telephonic call, and on the following night, an unlawful assembly consisting of several persons, some of whom were armed with iron rods, pipes and wooden sticks, gathered at the spot of the incident. During the ensuing assault, the deceased Tanmay, who was the nephew of the Informant, was assaulted by some of the accused persons. According to the prosecution, after investigation, it was revealed that, the assault on the deceased Tanmay was at the instance of accused Rahul Thange, who caught hold of Tanmany, whereas, Accused Rushikesh, Pradeep Thange and Sagar Thange assaulted him with kicks and fist blows and wooden sticks. The specific fatal assault is attributed 3 66BA1608.2026.odt to accused Santosh Thange, who is alleged to have struck deceased Tanmay on the head with an iron rod, as a result of which Tanmay succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution alleges that all the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and shared a common object to commit the present offence. The learned Counsel for the Applicants principally submits that the present bail application is on the ground of parity. He argues that neither of the present Applicants is named in the FIR. Though their names find mention in the gist of the charge-sheet filed by the Prosecution, no specific overt act has been attributed to the present Applicants. Thus, taking into consideration the entire prosecution record consisting of first charge-sheet and even second charge-sheet, at the most, one can say that, the present applicants were merely part of the unlawful assembly. He further submitted that, during the course of investigation, the Informant and several witnesses, who were acquainted with the persons from the village, did not attribute any specific role to the present Applicants in the assault upon deceased Tanmay. A few of the witnesses have identified the present Applicants as being members of the unlawful assembly; however, they have made specific allegations of assault against the other co-accused persons and not against the present Applicants. The learned Advocate for the Applicants invited my attention to the fact that accused Pradeep Thange and Sagar Thange, who were named from the inception and against whom specific roles of assaulting 4 66BA1608.2026.odt the deceased have been attributed, have already been released on bail. It is further argued that, at the highest, the role attributed to the present Applicants is that of being present as members of the larger assembly. 5. While making submissions in respect of Applicant No. 1, the learned Advocate submits that his name does not find mention in the statements of some of the principal eye-witnesses, and no overt act of assault has been attributed to him. As far as Applicant No. 2 is concerned, though his presence is referred to by some of the witnesses, no assault upon the deceased has been attributed to him. He submits that only one witness, namely, Amol Gadhe, states that when he attempted to intervene, Applicant No. 2 asked him to stay away and not to intervene. The learned Advocate further points out that several witnesses, including Bharat Chaudhari and Prathamesh Kakade, do not name either of the Applicants, whereas the statements specifically referring to the Applicants came to be recorded considerably after the occurrence. These statements were recorded almost one month after the date of the incident. It is, therefore, submitted that, particularly when the persons who have been attributed a direct role in the assault have been enlarged on bail, the continued detention of the present Applicants would be unjustified. He, therefore, prays that the Applicants be released on bail, subject to any stringent conditions that may be imposed. 5 66BA1608.2026.odt 6. The learned APP opposes the present application. She submits that this was not an isolated assault by one or two persons, but a concerted attack by an unlawful assembly consisting of 25–30 persons, several of whom were armed with dangerous weapons. The Applicants have been identified by the witnesses as being part of the said assembly. It is further submitted that Applicant No. 2, in fact, played a role in the actual assault and threatened the witness who attempted to intervene in the assault. Thus, the presence of the present Applicants in the unlawful assembly clearly establishes that they shared the common object of committing the offence. The learned APP further points out that Applicant No. 2 has a criminal antecedent involving an offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC in the year 2024. She, therefore, submits that, taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the nature of the offence, and the nature of the assembly, the present Applicants do not deserve to be released on bail. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the entire material placed on record. There can be no dispute as to the seriousness of the occurrence. It is a matter of record that a young person has lost his life in an assault allegedly committed by a large group. Equally, while considering an application for bail in a case involving several accused, the Court is required to examine the material 6 66BA1608.2026.odt attributed to the particular applicant and cannot decide the application merely on the basis of the gravity of the offence in the abstract. The principle of parity also cannot be applied mechanically. What is material is whether the role attributed to the applicant is comparable to or less serious than that attributed to the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail. Viewed from this perspective, the circumstance that assumes significance in the present case is that co-accused Pradeep Thange and Sagar Thange have already been released on bail. The prosecution alleges a specific and direct role in the assault on the deceased, Tanmay, against the co-accused. The material presently placed against the present applicants does not place either of them on a higher footing than the said co-accused. 8. Neither of the applicants is named in the FIR. Insofar as Applicant No. 1 is concerned, no specific act of assault upon the deceased is attributed to him. His name appears in some of the statements of the witnesses as a person forming part of the gathering. Significantly, the other eyewitnesses relied upon by the prosecution do not name the present Applicant No. 1. Thus, not all the eyewitnesses have named the present Applicant No. 1 and, admittedly, none of the eyewitnesses attributes any role to him that can be said to be of a higher footing than the role attributed to the accused who have already been released on bail. Coupled with this is the fact that Applicant No. 1 has no criminal antecedents, save and except the present crime. 7 66BA1608.2026.odt 9. The material against Applicant No. 2 is somewhat more specific, inasmuch as his presence is referred to by certain witness. Witness Amol Gadhe, in fact, goes a step further and attributes a specific role to the present Applicant No. 2 by stating that, when the witness was attempting to intervene in the fight, Applicant No. 2 caught hold of him and threatened him not to get involved or intervened. However, even on the basis of this material, Applicant No. 2 is not alleged to have assaulted the deceased with any weapon or otherwise inflicted any injury upon him. Some of the other eyewitnesses do not name him at all. The effect of the allegation that Applicant No. 2 prevented intervention, and whether such circumstance, considered along with the other material on record, is sufficient to prima facie establish the prosecution's allegation that he shared the common intention or common object, as the case may be, are matters that will have to be determined at the stage of trial. At this stage, however, the material attributed to Applicant No. 2 does not indicate any direct assault upon the deceased. 10. Another circumstance which cannot be altogether ignored at this stage is that the statements which specifically implicate the present applicants in the occurrence were not recorded immediately after the incident, but after a considerable interval. This circumstance is not being treated as sufficient, by itself, to discard those statements. The 8 66BA1608.2026.odt truthfulness and evidentiary value of the statements are matters for trial. Nevertheless, for the limited purpose of assessing the prima facie case for bail, the delay assumes some relevance, particularly when the applicants were not named in the FIR and when other witnesses do not consistently name them. Even this Court, while granting anticipatory bail and regular bail to some of the accused persons, has taken this fact into consideration and held that the belatedly recorded statements do not inspire confidence at this stage. 11. The prosecution is justified in contending that, where an offence is committed by members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object, the absence of an individual role attributed to an accused in the infliction of injury is not, by itself, decisive. However, that proposition does not mean that every person alleged to have been present in a large assembly must necessarily remain behind bars or in custody until the conclusion of the trial, irrespective of the quality of the material concerning his membership, participation, and role. At the stage of bail, the Court is required to make a limited assessment of these circumstances without recording findings that may affect the trial. 12. Furthermore, the investigation is complete and the charge- sheet has been filed. The applicants have been in custody since 9 66BA1608.2026.odt 15.03.2026 and 17.03.2026, respectively. Having regard to the quality of the material collected by the prosecution against the present applicants, the period of custody already undergone by the applicants appears to be proportionate for the purpose of considering their applications for grant of bail. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER [i] The Application is allowed. [ii] The Applicants be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 0639 of 2025 dated 24.10.2025 registered with Bidkin Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 45, 51 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each, with one solvent surety in the like amount on the following conditions. a] The applicants shall attend Bidkin Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural), on first Monday of every month. b] The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. 13. The Application stands disposed of. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/09/2026 14:31:16