IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1005 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2574 OF 2026 1. Sunil Bhausing Rathod 2. Baban Rupchand Rathod 3. Dinesh Baban Rathod 4. Ganesh Baban Rathod … APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra … RESPONDENT ... Mr. Rahul R. Karpe h/f Mr. Parth Surendra Salunke, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. V. S. Kakde, Advocate for the Informant CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The Applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0210/2026 registered with Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 352, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is based on the First Information Report lodged by Anil Rathod. There is a dispute between Applicant No.1, Sunil Bhausing Rathod, and the Informant and his father regarding agricultural land. On 01.05.2026, the Informant along with his aba1005.26.odt 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:42412 father went to their agricultural land. At about 7.00 p.m., when they were present in Gut No.115, the Applicants along with the co-accused came to the spot. They allegedly started abusing the Informant and his father. It is alleged that Dinesh was carrying an axe in his hand. Applicant No.1-Sunil took the said axe from Dinesh and assaulted the Informant on his head, causing a bleeding injury. It is further alleged that all the accused abused and assaulted the Informant and his father by giving kicks and fist blows. 3. Learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that there is admittedly a dispute between the parties and, therefore, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. By referring to the documents placed on record, it was submitted that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the orders obtained by Applicant No.1 against the Informant and his father. It was further submitted that, considering the allegations made against the Applicants, their custodial interrogation is not necessary. 4. Learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for the Informant opposed the grant of any relief to the Applicants. They submitted that there are specific allegations against Applicant No.1 that he assaulted the Informant on his head with an axe, resulting in a grievous injury. It was further submitted that, considering the statements of the witnesses recorded during aba1005.26.odt 2 of 5 the investigation, the occurrence of the incident deserves to be accepted. According to them, having regard to the nature of the offence and the injuries caused to the Informant, the Applicants are not entitled to the relief of pre- arrest bail. 5. The First Information Report itself indicates that there is a dispute between the Informant and Applicant No.1 regarding the agricultural land. The documents placed on record by the Applicants also support the existence of such a dispute. As regards the occurrence dated 01.05.2026, although the Informant has alleged that four persons participated in the assault on him and his father, his statement is not fully supported by the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. There are material inconsistencies in these statements regarding the participation of the assailants in the alleged offence. 6. Further, although the injury has been certified as grievous by the private hospital, the description of the injury does not prima facie indicate that it is grievous in nature. It is also not in dispute that the alleged axe used in the commission of the offence has already been seized from the spot itself. Therefore, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of Applicant No.1. There are also no allegations against the other Applicants regarding the use of aba1005.26.odt 3 of 5 any weapon, and their alleged role is limited to assaulting the Informant and his father by kicks and fist blows. Therefore, there is no question of any recovery from them either. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case to confirm the interim relief granted to Applicant Nos.2 to 4 and to allow the application of Applicant No.1. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Application is allowed in terms of interim order dated 19.06.2026. (ii) In the event of arrest of Applicant No. 1. Sunil Bhausing Rathod, in connection with Crime No. 0210/2026, registered with Badnapur Police Station, Dist. Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. aba1005.26.odt 4 of 5 (vi) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. 8. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp aba1005.26.odt 5 of 5