920-ABA-988-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 988 OF 2026 Vivek Madhav Alias Kaduba Gore And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another Ms. A. P. Patil h/f Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicants Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2486 OF 2026 IN ABA/988/2026 Kiran Ramdas Borhade VERSUS Vivek Madhav Alias Kaduba Gore And Others Mr. A. S. Avhad h/f Adv. A. S. Chaudhari, Advocate for Applicant CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J DATE :SEPTEMBER 08, 2026 P. C. : 1. After hearing learned Counsels for both sides and when this Court has shown its disinclination to grant any relief to Applicant No. 2 – Samadhan Dagduba Gore, learned Counsel for Applicants, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of application qua this Applicant. 2. Application to the extent of Applicant No. 2 stands dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Applicant No.1 apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No. 30/2026 registered with Police Station Tembhurni, District Jalna for the 2026:BHC-AUG:41395 920-ABA-988-2026.odt offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3) and 352(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. First information report indicates that an incident had occurred on 15.03.2026 in which present Applicant as well as co-accused caused assault on Informant as well as witnesses with iron rod and wooden sticks. As far as present Applicant No. 1 is concerned, there is no evidence in order to show any grievous injury being sustained by the Informant or witnesses at his hand. 5. Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that there are numbers of assailants mentioned in the FIR and having regard to the said fact, the possibility of false/over implication is not ruled out. 6. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant opposed application. It is their submission that there is specific allegation against Applicant No.1 of causing assault on Avinash i.e. person who intervened into the said quarrel. It is the contention of learned APP that for the purpose of recovery of the weapon, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary. 7. Prima facie perusal of the record and more particularly, order passed by the Sessions Court indicates that the recovery of the weapon has 920-ABA-988-2026.odt already been done. In so far as Applicant No.1 is concerned, there is no material collected during the course of investigation indicating attribution of any grievous injury being caused by Applicant. In the facts of the case, this Court finds no reason not to confirm the interim relief. Hence, Application qua Applicant No. 1 is allowed by confirming interim relief dated 17.06.2026. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani