901ba1698-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1698 OF 2026 Shivraj s/o Ranjit Dalve VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ... Ms. Pratiksha S. Magre h/for Mr. Manish D. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. G. 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 bail in connection with Crime No. 356 of 2026, registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Dist. Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 3/25 and 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The present applicant came to be arrested on 07.07.2026 and since then, he is in custody. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the informant, who happened to be a Police official, attached to local crime branch of Nanded, alleged that on 07.07.2026, during the combing operation, which was undertaken by the superior police officials, in order to ascertain as to the suspects who are likely to commit offence against the body or property. In the said operation, the present police official 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:40108 901ba1698-26 received a discreet information that two persons in the market are trying to sell a pistol. Acting upon the said information, the Police party carrying combing operation visited the spot and accosted the present applicant and one another co-accused by name Sarmokhsingh Jagatsingh Ramgadiya. When the search of the present applicant was carried out, he was found in possession of a country made pistol with magazine without any bullet. Similar arm was also recovered from the possession of Sarmokhsingh Ramgadiya. Necessary Panchanama of recovery of the weapon and also in respect of the conducted raid was carried out. The offence was registered and the present applicant was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate. During investigation, it is revealed that the present applicant and co-accused informed that the country made pistol was obtained by them from Balaji Sangle, who is also made as co-accused in the present offence. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent and the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The recovery of pistol is alleged to have already been completed and there is no necessity of the applicant to be continued in jail custody. He also argues that the person from whom the alleged weapon was purchased has also been named by the present applicant and thus, due to the cooperation of the present applicant, co-accused have been arrested. He submits that though the prosecution alleges the application of Section 7 of the Arms Act, the minimum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 2 of 4 901ba1698-26 7 is seven years, and this is not a case where the prosecution can achieve a conviction punishable up to 14 years. In such a situation, further custodial interrogation or custody is not necessary. Therefore, the present applicant be released on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned APP submits that the offences alleged are of serious nature. The applicant was arrested on the spot with the illegal weapon in possession. Panchanama clearly shows that the applicant was in illegal possession of the weapon and he was attempting to sell the same in the open market without any licence. He submits that, as the applicant was found in acquisition and possession of the deadly weapon, Section 7 has been attracted, which is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of 14 years. The investigation is still in progress and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. I have heard both the Advocates and have also perused the documents annexed to the application. There is no dispute that the record reveals arrest of the present applicant on the spot alongwith weapon. However, the weapon was recovered along with the magazine, which was empty, and no bullets were found in the possession of the present applicant. The offences which are alleged against the present applicant, therefore, have the least possibility to stand for achieving a conviction for 14 years, subject to whatever the investigation has revealed. 3 of 4 901ba1698-26 7. Taking into consideration that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 07.07.2026, I am of the opinion that apprehension of the learned prosecutor that the applicant will not attend and cooperate the trial or indulge in hampering or tampering the prosecution witnesses can be taken care of by imposing strict conditions while releasing the applicant on bail. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicant Shivraj Ranjit Dalve, in connection with Crime No. 356 of 2026, registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Dist. Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 3/25 and 7/25 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 the concerned police station once in a week till the charges are framed. (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` 4 of 4