954ba1112-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 954 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1112 OF 2026 Govind s/o Hiralal Gadhe R/o Wadwali Tq. Paithan District Aurangabad … Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Paithan Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad … Respondent ... Mr. Wakale Vijay Shivaji a/w S. B. Sardar, Advocates for the Applicant Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 2nd September, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. By the present application, the applicant is seeking regular on bail in connection with Crime No. 98/2024, registered with Paithan Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 r/w 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The present applicant came to be arrested on 26.04.2025 and since then, he is in custody. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant Shri Laxman Gadhe lodged the First Information Report on 19.03.2024 alleging that his ancestral land bearing Block No.11 at Village Wadwali, 1 of 6 2026:BHC-AUG:40205 954ba1112-26 Ta. Paithan was partitioned between the three bothers including himself, brothers Hiralal Gadhe and Bhimrao Gadhe. There was dispute between them over that land and the same was pending before the Collector, wherein the order of status quo was granted. It is alleged that on 18.03.2024, at about 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., when the complainant and his children were at home, they heard the sound of tractor in the disputed land and therefore, they rushed to the land and saw that the present applicant, along-with the other co-accused who are his family members, were plowing the land with the tractor. The complainant gave understanding to the accused persons not to plow the land as the dispute is still pending before the Collector and there is already an order of status quo granted. It is alleged that co-accused no.1 abused him and by threatening him to kill, assaulted the complainant with sickle on his head. When the son- Umesh of complainant tried to intervene, he was also assaulted by accused no.1 with sickle on his head, and right side ribs. At that time, the present applicant and other co accused nos. 3 and 4 took sticks which were lying nearby and by uttering words “kill them” assaulted the complainant on neck and jaw and his son Umesh on ribs and knee. When the tractor driver by name Jalindar Pathade came to the rescue, he was also assaulted by co-accused no.1 by sickle on his left hand and he too sustained injury. The complainant and his son along-with driver of the tractor sustained bleeding injuries. The accused persons including the applicant alleged to have left from the spot. The son Umesh, informed the incident to his uncle Bhimrao who then came at 2 of 6 954ba1112-26 the spot and took the injured persons to the hospital and from there, the present FIR came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that even by going through the contents of the FIR, the applicant is not alleged to have possessed or used deadly weapon sickle and the specific allegation of use of sickle is against the accused Balaji. The applicant is attributed only a general and omnibus role of assault with the wooden stick, identical to the role attributed to co-accused Rajesh and Datta who have already been released on bail. It is further submitted that medical papers also do not disclose that the injury is caused by the hard and blunt object corresponding to the alleged assault by stick. The injuries described in the certificate are attributed to the hard and sharp weapon. Thus, the learned Advocate for the applicant prays for releasing the applicant on bail, mainly on the ground of parity with the co-accused Rajesh and Datta. 5. The learned APP opposes the application. It is submitted that the applicant is specifically named in the FIR as well as in the statement of the injured witness Umesh. He submits that the the occurrence was a consorted attack arising out of the land dispute and that the applicant not only participated in the assault, but also shared the exhortation to kill. One of the injures sustained by Umesh is certified as grievous injury. According to the prosecution, the applicant's liability has to be considered with the aid of section 34 of IPC and seriousness of accusation dis-entitles him to be released on bail. 3 of 6 954ba1112-26 6. I have considered the rival submissions and have also examined the material referred during the hearing of the application. I have also perused the orders granting anticipatory bail to accused Rajesh and the order of regular bail releasing accused Datta. Though the FIR prima facie discloses participation of the present applicant in the alleged offence, and also attributes a specific role and injuries with the help of stick, yet, at this stage of bail, this court is not expected to conduct a meticulous evaluation of the evidence or record findings, which may prejudice the trial. At the same time, the parity cannot be applied merely because another co-accused has been released on bail. What is required to be done by the Court is that the court must compare the nature of accusation, specific role, the weapon attributed, resulting injuries and other relevant circumstances of the accused concerned. 7. On such comparison, a prima facie distinction emerges between accused Balaji and the present applicant. The sickle blows are specifically attributed to accused Balaji. The present applicant is alleged to have used wooden stick along-with co accused Rajesh and Datta. The injury certificate of Laxman records a contused lacerated wound on the right side of the forehead described as caused by hard and sharp object. The injured witness Umesh certifies to have sustained an incise wound on the right parietal region and another injury on the right side of the chest, both described in the injury certificate as caused by hard and sharp object. The later injury is 4 of 6 954ba1112-26 certified as grievous. Jalidar’s arm injury is also described as caused by hard and short object. Thus, without expressing any concluded opinion, the medical material placed before the Court does not, prima facie, disclose any distinct blunt-force injury which, at this stage, can be specifically connected with the alleged stick blow attributed to the present applicant. The submission of the learned APP that the accusation of exhortation and the prosecution case based on common intention will undisputedly require consideration at the time of trial. Those aspects are not being discarded. However, for the limited purpose of bail, the applicant’s overt-act is materially similar to that of attributed to co- accused Rajesh and Datte, both of whom have already been released on bail. Noting has been pointed out indicating the applicant’s stand on a graver footing compared to those co-accused who are released on bail. 8. The previous enmity over the land dispute also indicates that occurrence arose out of a specific local dispute between the related parties. The likelihood of recurrence is a circumstance relevant to the consideration of bail, though not to the merits of the prosecution case. Considering the applicant’s limited role, weapon attributed to him, the medical certificate referred above and the orders passed in favour of similarly placed co-accused and the fact that further detention is not shown to be necessary for any specific investigation purpose, a case of release of bail of the applicant is made out. The interference in the investigation, non cooperation at the time of trial can be grounds which 5 of 6 954ba1112-26 can be taken into consideration by imposing stringent condition while granting bail to the present applicant. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicant Govind Hiralal Gadhe, in connection with Crime No. 98/2024, registered with Paithan Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 r//w 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)/- with one or two sureties of the like amount. (iii)) The Applicant shall attend trial on every date. (iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner. (iv) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and address to the investigating officer. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 6 of 6