1 41-Cr.BA-1176-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 1176 OF 2026 Ashish @ Goli Jairam Gyanchandani -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. Dhruv Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. S.S. Dhote, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. Ms. Parita Lakhani, Advocate for the Assist to Prosecution. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. Heard. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.826/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 351(2)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal. 3. The First information report came to be lodged on 05/10/2025. The informant, namely, Vijay has stated that his brothers, namely, Dilip and Satish, runs a clothing business in which the accused, Ashish alias Goli Jayram Gyanchandani who is the son of their cousin, was formerly employed for nearly 7 to 8 years. As the accused was allegedly involved in a Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:12264 2 41-Cr.BA-1176-2026 gambling case, which was likely to affect the reputation of the business, the brothers terminated his employment in September 2025. It is alleged that, harbouring a grudge over his dismissal, the accused issued repeated threats to harm both his uncles. On 05/10/2025, at about 00:15 hours, while the informant's brothers were returning home after visiting the Sankat Mochan Hanuman Temple, the accused allegedly drove a Hyundai car bearing registration No. MH-34-AA-8756 at a high speed and intentionally rammed it into them near the “Le Relax” Bar. Both the victims sustained grievous injuries and were initially shifted to the Government Hospital at Pandharkawada and thereafter referred to Yavatmal for further medical treatment. On the basis of these allegations, the F.I.R. came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was released on bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 26/12/2025. He further submits that, on 03/07/2026, due to some urgent work, the applicant could not remain present before the Court. Therefore, his counsel filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance. However, the said application was rejected by the Court, and a non-bailable warrant came to be issued. Accordingly, the warrant was Piyush Mahajan 3 41-Cr.BA-1176-2026 executed, and the applicant was arrested on 04/07/2026. He further submits that, in the meanwhile, the prosecution had filed two applications for cancellation of bail, one by the State and the other by the informant, alleging violation of Condition No. 3 of the order dated 26/12/2025. He submits that, since the applicant was arrested before the said applications could be decided, both applications were not pressed by the State as well as by the informant. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the Court ought not to have observed or taken into consideration any alleged breach of the bail conditions, particularly when the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the same. He further submits that the application for grant of bail was filed by the applicant only on the ground that he had been arrested pursuant to the order issuing the non-bailable warrant, and therefore, the Court ought to have considered the said application independently. He further submits that, admittedly, the applicant had been granted bail by the original order dated 26/12/2025 and that he was taken into custody only on account of his failure to appear before the Court on 03/07/2026 due to some urgent work. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel submits that Piyush Mahajan 4 41-Cr.BA-1176-2026 the Court erred in rejecting the applicant's application for bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel assisting the prosecution vehemently oppose the application and submit that the Court, vide order dated 06/08/2026, has observed that the applicant has prima facie breached the condition imposed upon him by entering the village. They further submit that, on 03/07/2026, the applicant remained absent before the Court and his application for exemption from personal appearance was rejected, pursuant to which a non-bailable warrant came to be issued. They submit that the applicant was under an obligation to comply with the conditions imposed while granting him bail. Despite such condition, he allegedly entered the village, thereby committing a breach of the said condition. They further submit that his subsequent arrest pursuant to the non-bailable warrant also reflects non-compliance with the directions of the Court. Therefore, considering the conduct of the applicant and the prima facie breach of the bail condition, they submit that the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. It appears from the record that the Court ought to Piyush Mahajan 5 41-Cr.BA-1176-2026 have considered the applicant's application only to the extent of the ground on which he was taken into custody. In fact, the non-bailable warrant was issued on the ground that the applicant was not present before the Court on 03/07/2026. However, the Court proceeded to consider the alleged breach of the bail condition by the applicant. It is to be noted that, when the State as well as the informant had filed applications for cancellation of bail alleging breach of the bail condition, such a finding could have been considered in those applications. However, since the said applications were not pressed, the Court ought not to have relied upon the alleged breach while deciding the applicant's application for bail. It is further to be noted that, unless an opportunity was given to the applicant to disprove the said allegations, the Court ought not to have arrived at a prima facie conclusion that the applicant had breached the bail condition. Be that as it may, so far as the applicant's release on bail is concerned, it appears from the record that the applicant was not present before the Court on 03/07/2026, when the matter was listed. His advocate was present and filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance; however, the said application was rejected and, a non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. It further appears from the Piyush Mahajan 6 41-Cr.BA-1176-2026 record that there is nothing to indicate that the applicant was either not cooperating with the trial or was consistently remaining absent. Nothing has been brought on record by the State or the informant to show that the applicant was not cooperating with the trial or that his conduct had otherwise necessitated the issuance of a non-bailable warrant. On the contrary, it appears that the applicant's absence was confined to one date, i.e., 03/07/2026, pursuant to which the non-bailable warrant was issued and subsequently executed. In the absence of any material indicating that the applicant was deliberately avoiding the proceedings or was otherwise not cooperating with the trial, his absence on a single date, by itself, would not be sufficient ground to reject his application for bail. It is to be noted that by order dated 26/12/2025, bail was granted to the applicant on merits. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Application is allowed; (ii) The applicant/accused (Ashish @ Goli Jairam Gyanchandani) be released on Piyush Mahajan 7 41-Cr.BA-1176-2026 regular bail in connection with Crime No.826/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 351(2)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount; (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and also shall not tamper with the evidence; (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to the Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency; (v) Once the trial commences, the accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail; (vi) The State or the informant is at liberty to file a separate application before the Piyush Mahajan 8 41-Cr.BA-1176-2026 trial Court, in case there is a violation of the conditions of the bail order; (vii) The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same; (viii) Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan Signed by: Piyush Ramesh Mahajan Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/09/2026 15:13:05