1 902ba1350.268 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1350 OF 2026 SWARAJ KRUSHNA SOLSE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shekade Shashikant E APP for Respondents/State : Mr. D.J. Patil Advocate for the Respondent/Informant : Mr. R.G. Narwade … CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE : 01.09.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties. 2. At the outset, after hearing at length, when this Court showed its dis-inclination to allow the application for applicants Ritesh, Sani and Arbaj, the learned Advocate for the applicants, on instructions, submits that he is withdrawing the application, in the light of the statement made by the learned APP that the charge-sheet is almost ready and will be filed within couple of days. He also seeks liberty to file a fresh application on behalf of these three applicants, after the charge- sheet is filed before the learned trial Court. 3. Leave as sought is granted. 4. Thus, the application of applicants Ritesh Bhausaheb Sonawane, Sunny @ Chetan Baban Jadhav and Arbaj @Asif Kaleem 2 902ba1350.268 Shaikh is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In case the application is filed after the charge-sheet for bail, the learned trial Court should consider the same on its own on merits. 6. The present application in respect of Ritesh, Sani and Arbaj is dismissed as withdrawn. 7. So far as the applicant Swaraj is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that on 07.06.2026 at about 9.30 p.m. that accused Vaibhav and one accused by named Bhurya, Arbaj and Rahul Chabandake alongwith 4 to 5 unknown persons had visited the shop of the informant for purchasing betel leaves. The informant refused to give them the same on the ground that they already had unpaid amount in their account, and therefore, he requested them to clear the earlier dues. The accused had then left from the shop. However, it is alleged that when the Complainant was at his house the accused persons came to his house at 12.30 a.m. in the night and started verbally abusing him and when the Complainant started requesting them not to abuse at that time. It is alleged that the accused by name Bhurya assaulted the Complainant on his eye brow with Chopper which he was holding. The Complainant was then assaulted by Vaibhav with the help of wooden stick which caused injuries to the informant on his right hand and back. As far as accused Arbaj, Rahul and Bhurya are concerned they assaulted the Complainant with fist and blows. It is further alleged that the accused Rahul took out Rs. 3,600/- from the pocket of the Complainant. 3 902ba1350.268 The other unknown persons who had accompanied the above named accused started pelting stones on the roof of the Complainant’s house. Further it is alleged that the accused who was with Vaibhav had damaged the door of the house of the Complainant with iron sword and started threatening the Complainant with his life. The informant alleges that because of the terror the neighbours also feared and went inside their houses and had closed the doors and windows of their houses. It is further alleged that when the mother of the Complainant came out, the accused persons also abused her and threatened her with life. The accused persons thereafter, left, but while leaving they further caused damage to four wheeler which was parked on the road. The present offence was therefore, registered vide Cr. No. 306 of 2026 registered at Kopargaon City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for the offence punishable under Sections 119(1), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 324(5), 112(2)(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 5 and 7 of the Bombay Police Act, 4 r/w 25 of the Arms Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Amendments Act. During the investigation Section 111 (2) (b) of the BNS was added by the Investigation Officer. The applicant Swaraj came to be arrested on 09.06.2026 and since then till date he is in custody. 8. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant Swaraj is not named in the FIR but however, his role and name surfaced during the Course of investigation. He submits that even if the applicant’s presence is being revealed at the time of investigation, the 4 902ba1350.268 Complainant who is an eye witness of the entire incident and is also an injured withess does not ascribed any specific role to the present applicant. He submits that two of the accused persons Rahul and Rohit who have specific role in the alleged offences are already released on bail. He further submits that the injuries that are caused, though not caused by the present applicant but still are simple in nature and therefore, the period undergone is sufficient to this Court to consider the Bail Application of the present applicant Swaraj. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents to the present applicant. 9. The learned APP for the respondent-State submits that the FIR discloses the terror that accused persons are causing in the locality and also the manner in which the entire offence has been committed shows that they do not have any fear in their mind. He further argues that all of them have without premeditated mind had left the house of the Complainant and have also assaulted the Complainant as well the Complainant’s property and the nearby vehicles standing on the road were also damaged, so as to create terror in the mind of persons residing in the said locality. The present offence is serious and it has attributed the offence of organized crime which is punishable under Section 111(2) (b) of the BNS. He submits that taking into consideration the entire nature and gravity of the offences, the application of the present applicant Swaraj is liable to be rejected. 10. I have heard both sides and have also perused the entire 5 902ba1350.268 record that has been produced by the learned APP pertaining to the investigation. 11. Before I consider the merits of the matter, the learned Advocate Mr. R.G. Narwade appearing on behalf of the Complainant will have to be taken in consideration for the reason that he makes submission across the bar that he has instructions not to object for grant of bail to the accused person Swaraj. 12. The Complaint that has been registered at the instance of the informant and was thereafter taken up for investigation, wherein the entire investigation machinery has been implemented for revealing the truth of the accusations. At this stage, the conduct of the informant in appearing before the Court and stating that he has no complaint, is required to be deprecated. The informant is put to the terms that, if it is revealed that he has used the investigating machinery and also Court machinery, who has subsequently spent its crucial judicial time in considering the remand applications, appropriate action will be initiated against the Complainant. This, however, does not mean that where there is a bonafide cause and the parties wish to settle the matter amongst themselves, they cannot do so, however, when an offence of such gravity and magnitude is committed, affecting the general public at large and also creating hurdles in maintaining the peace and law in the society, then such practice of registering offence and then settling with such accused persons deserves to be condemned. 6 902ba1350.268 13. As far as the merits of the present case is concerned, the admitted position is that the FIR does not disclose the name of the present applicant Swaraj and secondly even if a specific role has been assigned to each and every accused persons, there is no such specific role is assigned to the applicant Swaraj. Taking into consideration that two accused persons Rahul and Rohit are already been released on bail who comparatively have played more active role than the present applicant, in that case the law of parity can be applied to the present applicant Swaraj and he also can be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order : ORDER (i) The Bail Application in respect of applicant Swaraj Krushna Solse is allowed. (ii) The application of applicants namely Ritesh Bhausaheb Sonawane, Sunny @ Chetan Baban Jadhav and Arbaj @Asif Kaleem Shaikh is dismissed as withdrawn. (iii) The applicant Swaraj Krushna Solse, shall be released on bail in Crime No. 306 of 2026 registered at Kopargaon City Police Station, District Ahalyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 119(1), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 324(5) and 111(2)(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 5 and 7 of the Bombay Police Act, Section 4 r/w 25 of the Arms Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Amendments Act, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicant shall attend the concerned Investigating Officer till filing of the charge-sheet, unless his attendance is specifically exempted. 7 902ba1350.268 b) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. c) The applicant shall furnish his current residential addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and the trial Court within seven days of his release, intimate any change forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further investigation is required. d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if he possess passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of their release. e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. g) All above observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application only. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. h) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) mahajansb/