903-ABA-1734-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1734 OF 2026 Ajay Mohan Bendwal Versus The State Of Maharashtra Ms. R. L. Jakhade, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondents/State CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J DATE :SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 P. C. : 1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No. 229/2025 registered with Police Station Shirpur City, District Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. First information report indicates occurrence of incident on 28.04.2025 in which the informant and witnesses were assaulted by the present Applicant and co-accused. There is allegation against present Applicant that he assaulted Tarachand with axe. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that investigation into the crime is complete with filing of the charge-sheet. According to her, though there is allegation against present Applicant in the FIR, the same is not supported by the evidence collected during the course of investigation. To support this submission, she drew attention of the Court to the transcript 2026:BHC-AUG:42084 903-ABA-1734-2026.odt of video indicating that no weapon is said to have been seen in the hands of present Applicant. It is her further submission that there is allegation against more than 1 person causing assault on Tarachand, as such, grievous injury caused to Tarachand cannot be attributed to present Applicant. She also drew attention of the Court to the fact that there is recovery of weapons, which were thrown by the assailants by the spot. As such, her contention is that there is no question of custodial interrogation of the Applicant. 4. At the outset, learned APP opposed maintainability of the Application on the ground that there is no change in circumstance. He drew attention of the Court to order passed by this Court rejecting pre-arrest bail of the Applicant wherein it is recorded that the evidence, which is now sought to be relied upon, was already considered by this Court while rejecting the said application. On merits, he also opposed the application. 5. Perusal of the record shows that the previous pre-arrest bail application filed by the Applicant before this Court came to be rejected by order dated 01.12.2025 passed in ABA No. 1673/2025. Observations made I paragraph 7 of the said order indicates that the evidence, which is now sought to be relied upon by the Applicant, was duly considered while rejecting said application. Taking any different view would amount to review of said order, which is not permissible in law. Hence, on this count as well as in view of the fact that there is no change in circumstance, 903-ABA-1734-2026.odt application deserves no consideration. 6. In view of above, application stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani