Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2026GANESH MOHANRAO WAGHMAREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bhosle Santosh C.APP for Respondent : Mr. A.R. Kale... CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2026PER COURT :

The present applicant who is original accused no. 2 in FirstInformation Report No. 293/2025, dated 11.06.2025, for the offencespunishable under Sections 103 (1), 115 (2), 3 (5), 351 (2), 351 (3) and352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, has approached this Court, praying for grant of bail. Accused no. 2 / the applicant was arrested on11.06.2025, on which date FIR was lodged. The incident had occurred on10.06.2025, which was reported by Savita Solanke / wife of the deceased.

In short, it is the case of prosecution that on 10.06.2025,accused no. 1 – Vijay had been to the house of the deceased and enquiredabout the presence of the deceased in the house. When enquired from theinformant, it was told to accused no. 1 that deceased had been gone 2 933.odttowards the filed, at that time, the informant noticed that accused no. 1was carrying weapon / knife.

In FIR, she further stated that accused no. 1 was roaming inthe village and saying that he would kill the husband of the informant. Onthe same day, at 06:30 evening the husband of informant returned homeand the incident was narrated by the informant to her husband.

At 08:00 p.m. on the same day again accused no. 1, came tothe house of the informant and demanded the amount from the deceased. Thereafter, accused no. 1 started quarreling with the husband ofinformant and also threaten him to kill. At that time, accused no. 2 /applicant came and also started raising quarrel by hurling abuses to thehusband of informant and in scuffle the present applicant caught hold ofboth the hands of the husband of informant, at which time, accused no. 1took out the knife and gave stab injury in the stomach of the husband ofthe informant. The victim was thereafter, taken to the hospital and he diedon 11.06.2025.

It is in this background, criminal law was set in motion andduring the course of investigation, the weapon of crime was seized from 3 933.odtthe spot. After completion of investigation, one more accused is added inthe crime who was relative of original accused nos. 1 and 2.5.Heard the respective counsels.

Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Bhosale, contendedthat if the allegations in the FIR, so also documents which are part ofchargesheet are perused, it would reveal that the role ascertain to thepresent applicant, prima facie, will show that there was neither theintention nor the knowledge on his part to commit the offence. He,further, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated, justbecause his brother, had some financial transaction with the deceased, due to which quarrel had took place. He, further, argued that since thechargesheet is already filed and investigation is completed andconsidering the fact that the accused has no criminal antecedents, he maybe released on bail.

Per contra, learned APP has contended that considering thescope of present proceedings, the detail examination of the evidence isnot at all necessary. According to him, the fact remains that when thedeceased was assaulted, the applicant was present on the spot and the act 4 933.odtof the present applicant clearly shows that he facilitated accused no. 1 tocommit the crime. He submitted that considering the evidence availableon record, the applicant be not released on bail.

With the assistance of both the counsels, I have gonethrough the record of the case. The incident which is part of the finalreport can be narrated in two parts. First part, in which, accused no. 1 hadbeen house of the victim and enquired about her husband, at which time, accused no. 1 was carrying the knife which was noticed by the informant. In the second part, incident which taken place at 08:00 p.m., it wasaccused no. 1 who first came on the spot of incident and started a scufflewith the husband of informant. Thereafter, the present applicant hadarrived who had also abused the husband of informant and had quarreledwith him and in that quarrel, he caught hold both the hands of thedeceased. It is the case of prosecution, at that time, it was accused no. 1who took out the knife and gave a stab blow. Thus, the story advanced inthe FIR, so also version of other witnesses shows that first the hands ofthe deceased were caught hold by the present applicant and, thereafter, accused no. 1 had given a blow. The fact remains that nothing has beenbrought on record by the prosecution to show that the applicant wasaware that accused no. 1 was carrying the knife. Apart from it, the role 5 933.odtassigned to the present applicant that he had caught hold of the hands ofthe present applicant, prima facie, shows that he was not activelyinvolved in the offence committed.