H.C.SHIV 927.BA3074.26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3074 OF 2026 Vinod Parasnath Singh …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Induprakash Tiwari with Bhagayshri with Pawan Mali with Yagni Sarvankar for the Applicant. Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with Crime No.61 of 2025, registered with Manor police station, Palghar under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) on the report dated 5th April, 2026 filed by the Informant-Danish Khan. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 4th April 2026, at about 6:00 pm, the informant was proceeding towards Gujarat by driving his tempo. His friend-Sonu was also proceeding towards Gujarat by a separate vehicle. On their way, they halted at the Dhaba owned by applicant. After freshening up, when the informant went to the cash counter, the applicant, who was seated there told the informant to donate Rs.20/- in the donation box. The informant replied that he had no cash. Consequently, the applicant got annoyed. Further, the applicant along with his 8 to 10 labors assaulted the informant and HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2026.09.16 20:03:11 +0300 H.C.SHIV 927.BA3074.26.DOC his friend-Sonu with the fist blows. One of the assailants and the applicant assaulted the informant by means of belt. One assailant assaulted him over the head by means of stick. The applicant splashed petrol on the body and private part of the informant. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. On completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. 4. Mr.Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that at the relevant time, the informant and his friend-Sonu were openly urinating near the Dhaba. When the applicant’s labours objected, the informant and his friend raised a dispute. Thereafter, there was scuffle between the parties. He, further submitted that there is no evidence to attract the offence u/S. 109 of BNS. Therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 5. In reply, Mr.Pethe, learned APP submitted that the investigation material indicates that the applicant was involved in the said crime as he along with co-accused persons had assaulted the victims. The applicant has similar criminal antecedents. Therefore, the bail may be rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties. The narration in the report indicate that, at the time of the incident, the applicant and his labours had assaulted the informant and his friend as noted above. The medical report supports the fact of sustaining injuries by the informant. After the incident, the informant had difficulty in vision. He was referred to higher center for further management. Thus, there is a prima facie case against the applicant. The applicant has 10 criminal antecedents registered at Manor police station :- H.C.SHIV 927.BA3074.26.DOC Sr. No. C.R. No. Sections 1 C.R.No.03/2005 Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act. 2 C.R.No.02/2008 Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act and Sec.65 of Maharashtra Prohibition Act & Sec.33, 131 of Maharashtra Police Act. 3 C.R.No.11/2008 Sec.285 of IPC, Sec. 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act & Sections 130(1) and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 4 C.R.No.69/2009 Sec.353, 285, 201, 34 of IPC and Sec. 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act 5 C.R.No.75/2009 Sec.389, 285, 34 of IPC 6 C.R.No.18/2012 Sec.147, 148, 149, 326, 504, 506 of IPC. 7 C.R.No.82/2012 Sec.143, 147, 324, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 8 C.R.No.142/2012 Sec.143, 147, 149, 323 of IPC. 9 C.R.No.52/2021 Sec.65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act. 10 C.R.No.65/2022 Section 324, 323, 504, 506 of IPC The chart indicates that, half of which were bodily offences. Thus, the past activities of the applicant are similar in nature to the present case. This evinces that the applicant has no regard to the law. In view thereof, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the Applicant. The Bail Application is, therefore, liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 8. It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)