✦ Bombay High Court

O. HARICHANDRA SHINDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. Advocate

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

The application is allowed on thefollowing terms :a] The applicants shall be released on bail in connection withCrime No

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1322 OF 20251. SACHIN SURESH ALIAS APPASAHEB KALE2. AJAY @ ROMAN S/O. HARICHANDRA SHINDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Dnyaneshwar B.PokaleAPP for Respondent : Mr.V.M.Jaware…CORAM: ARUN R. PEDNEKAR, J.DATE: 28-07-2025PER COURT:-1.Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and thelearned A.P.P. for the respondent-State.2.The applicants are seeking bail as they are arrested on05.06.2025 in connection with Crime No. 311/2025, dated05.06.2025, registered with Bidkin Police Station, DistrictChhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable underSection 3, 4, 25 of Arms Act, under Section 135 of the MaharashtraPolice Act, 1951 and under Section 3 (5) of the B.N.S.3.The learned counsel for the applicants submits that theapplicants are arrested for having possession of country madepistol and sharp edge knife. The maximum punishment of theoffence is of three years. Subsequently, section 7 of the Arms Actis added. 2 19-BA-1322-25.odt4.The learned APP submits that during course ofinvestigation, section 7 of the Arms Act is added.5.However, in the instant case, since nobody is foundusing weapon prima facie section 7 of the Arms Act would notapply as there is no allegations against the applicants for usage ofthe arms. Considering that the applicants are in custody from05.06.2025. The maximum punishment of the offence is of 3years. There are no antecedents against the applicant No.1. Asregards applicant No.2 there are two antecedents in respect ofGambling Act against him. Considering this aspect of the matter, the applicant is granted bail. The application is allowed on thefollowing terms :a] The applicants shall be released on bail in connection withCrime No. 311/2025, dated 05.06.2025, registered withBidkin Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, forthe offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 25 of Arms Act, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Section3 (5) of the B.N.S., on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- each, with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfactionof the trial Court. b] The applicants shall not enter the jurisdiction of Bidkin PoliceStation till the filing of the charge- sheet. 3 19-BA-1322-25.odtc] The applicants, upon being released on bail, shall not contactthe informant, in any manner whatsoever, during thependency of the trial. d] The applicants shall co-operate with the trial Court and theyshall attend each and every date, unless exempted by thetrial Court. e] The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of theprosecution and they shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.f] The applicants, upon being released on bail, shall place onrecord of the trial Court the details of their Contact Numberand residential address with updates in case of any change.6.Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaidconditions, the bail granted to the applicants shall be liable to becancelled.7.It is also clarified that the observations made in this orderare limited to the disposal of the present bail application. Theconcerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without beinginfluenced by the observations made hereinabove.8.The application stands disposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGErrd

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The application is allowed on thefollowing terms :a] The applicants shall be released on bail in connection withCrime No

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 4, 7, 25; MaharashtraPolice Act, 1951 — s. 135; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5); Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments