Ajay Mahesh Chounda v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 1695 OF 2025Ajay Mahesh Chounda, Age : 25 Years, Occupation : Labour,R/o. : Kasarshirsi, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur.… Applicant (Orig. Accused No. 2)VERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur.… Respondent…WITHBAIL APPLICATION NO. 1696 OF 2025Gajendra Shivraj SarvadeAge : 30 Years, Occupation : Labour,R/o. : Kasarshirsi, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur.… Applicant (Orig. Accused No. 6)VERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur.… Respondent…WITHBAIL APPLICATION NO. 1664 OF 2025Swapnil Gulab SuryawanshiAge : 33 Years, Occupation : EducationR/o. : Kasarshirsi, Taluka : NilangaDistrict : Latur… Applicant (Orig. Accused No. 3)VERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Jhs/1/17 Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur.… Respondent…WITHBAIL APPLICATION NO. 1693 OF 2025Dattu Maroti GaikwadAge : 41 Years, Occupation : LabourR/o. : Aundha, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur.… Applicant (Orig. Accused No. 1)VERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur.… Respondent…•Mr. D. P. Munde, Advocate for Applicants in BA Nos. 1695 &1696 of 2025•Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant in BA No. 1664 of2025•Mr. Pawar Hemantkumar F., Advocate for Applicant in BA No.1693 of 2025•Ms. D. S. Jape, APP for Respondent – State… CORAM :MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.RESERVED ON :NOVEMBER 12, 2025.PRONOUNCED ON :NOVEMBER 28, 2025.PER COURT :-1.The applicants have filed the separate bail applications seekingregular bail in connection with First Information Report bearingCrime No. 0088 of 2025, dated 26.04.2025, registered withJhs/2/17 Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi, Taluka – Nilanga, District –Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2),191(2), 190, 115(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.2.The FIR was lodged by the informant, Gundappa ShivappaHasure, stating that on 26.04.2025 at about 12:00 noon, while hewas working in his farm, he received a phone call from his wifeinforming him about an assault on his nephew – Guruling AshokHasure, who was lying unconscious. The complainant immediatelyrushed towards village – Aundha, where he was informed that thevillagers had taken his nephew – Guruling, to the hospital. Thecomplainant made enquiries with the persons present at the spot, upon which Amar Pandurang Birajdar, Narsing Nivrutti Motibane, Balaji Vasant Biradar informed him about an earlier incident dated25.04.2025, at village Aundha, wherein a scuffle had taken placebetween persons belonging to the Dalit community and the Marathacommunity, during procession on the occasion of Dr. BabasahebAmbedkar Jayanti. However, the said dispute was settled on the samedate, i.e. 25.04.2025.3.It was further informed to the complainant that one of thevillagers from Aundha, namely Dattu Maroti Gaikwad, has called theco-accused persons, namely - Ajay Mahesh Chounda, Swapnil GulabSuryawanshi, Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade, Azahar Mohammad, AdityaJhs/3/17 More, all residents of Kasarshirsi, along with a few other persons whohad started quarreling with Yadav Dattatraya Birajdar and UmakantBalaji Patwari, regarding the incident dated 25.04.2025. It wasfurther informed that the aforesaid accused persons started assaultingYadav Dattatraya Birajdar and Umakant Balaji Patwari by giving kickand fist blows. When the said persons attempted to flee, theassailants chased them. As the situation escalated, the villagers alsostarted running hither and thither.4.The deceased – Guruling (nephew of the complainant -Gundappa), who was working in his field, unaware of the scufflecame on road to see what is going on and was allegedly caught bythe assailants. On the ground that he belonged to the same village, the said assailants assaulted him and caused his death. Consequently, the present crime came to be registered at the instance of the firstinformant – Gundappa Shivappa Hasure (Uncle of the deceased –Guruling).Submissions On Behalf Of Applicant – Swapnil Gulab Suryawanshi :-5.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant -Swapnil Gulab Suryawanshi, that the applicant has been falselyimplicated and arrested in the present case, and that there is nocredible evidence to connect him with the alleged offence. It isJhs/4/17 submitted that the statements of the witnesses, namely YadavDattatraya Birajdar and Umakant Balaji Patwari, which are reliedupon by the prosecution, are verbatim and identical, and wererecorded two days after the incident, reflecting an afterthought witha motive to take revenge against the applicant – Swapnil. It is furthersubmitted that although the applicant is alleged to be present duringthe incident dated 25.04.2025, his name has been deliberatelyincluded in the incident dated 26.04.2025, as he was about to getmarried a week thereafter, and the complainant party intended toimplicate him owing to the prior dispute dated 25.04.2025.6.According to the learned counsel, the main allegations ofassault are primarily against the main accused - Dattu MarotiGaikwad, who had assaulted the deceased on his stomach with fistand knee blows. Whereas, the applicant – Swapnil, is attributed onlythe role of holding right hand of the deceased. No weapon is allegedto have been used by the applicant, and even from a bare reading ofthe FIR, there appears to be no intention on the part of the applicant– Swapnil to commit the murder of the deceased – Guruling Hasure. 7.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant– Swapnil that, looking to the nature of the evidence collected by theInvestigating Officer against the Applicant – Swapnil, the offence ofcommitting murder is not likely to be proved as against him. It isJhs/5/17 submitted that the applicant – Swapnil is not related to any personfrom the village and had, in fact, pacified the quarrel on 25.04.2025.The only allegation against the applicant is that he had held the righthand of the deceased, without there being any overt act attributed tohim. 8.The learned counsel submits that the applicant may, therefore, be released on bail, as he is ready to abide by any stringentconditions imposed by this Court and undertakes to attend the trialregularly. The applicant – Swapnil has deep roots in the society, andtherefore, there is no likelihood of his fleeing from ends of justice, orremaining unavailable for trial. It is further submitted that there areno criminal antecedents to the discredit of the applicant – Swapnil. Therefore, in this case, this Court may exercise its discretionarypowers in his favour. The applicant is arrested on 03.05.2025, and asthe investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, nofruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant – Swapnilfurther detained. Submissions On Behalf Of Applicants – Ajay Mahesh Chounda AndGajendra Shivraj Sarvade :-9.The learned counsel for the applicants in BA No. 1695 of 2025and BA No. 1696 of 2025, appearing for the accused/applicants –Ajay Mahesh Chounda and Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade, submits thatJhs/6/17 insofar as the role attributed to the present applicants is concerned, the applicant - Gajendra is alleged to have caught hold of thedeceased from behind, whereas the applicant – Ajay is alleged tohave caught hold of the left hand of the deceased. It is submitted thatthe fatal fist and knee blows were allegedly given by the accused –Dattu Maroti Gaikwad. The applicant – Ajay is shown to have beenarrested on 26.04.2025, i.e. on the date of the incident, whereas theapplicant – Gajendra is shown to have been arrested on 10.05.2025.10.It is the further submission of the learned counsel forapplicants – Ajay and Gajendra that there was no intention of theapplicants – Ajay and Gajendra, who are stated to have merely heldthe deceased by his left hand and from behind, respectively. As perthe complaint, the deceased – Guruling was in his agriculture field, when he was caught unaware by the assailants. The accused/applicants Ajay and Gajendra did not use any weapon to inflict anybodily injury upon the deceased, nor are they attributed with anyovert acts of giving fist or knee blows, which are specificallyattributed to the co-accused Dattu Maroti Gaikwad.11.The learned counsel further submits that the applicants – Ajayand Gajendra have no criminal antecedents against them and theyhave deep roots in the society and would therefore, not flee awayfrom the ends of justice. They are ready to abide by any stringentJhs/7/17 conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed thatthey may be released on bail. Since Ajay is arrested on 26.04.2025and Gajendra is arrested on 10.05.2025, and the investigation iscomplete and charge-sheet is filed, further incarceration would be apre-trial punishment. Submissions On Behalf Of Applicant – Dattu Maroti Gaikwad :-12.The learned counsel for the applicant in BA No. 1693 of 2025 –Dattu Maroti Gaikwad submits that, from the the statement ofBalasaheb Narwate, recorded by the Investigating Officer during thecourse of the investigation, it could be seen that theaccused/applicant – Dattu was caught on the spot on the date ofincident i.e. 26.04.2025. However, the arrest panchnama shows thatthe the applicant – Dattu was formally arrested on 26.04.2025 atabout 21:37 hrs. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment inHanumant Jagannath Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra; WP No. 54 of2025, decided on 27.06.2025 to contend that the arrest itself beingillegal, as the applicant’s constitutional right under Article 22(2) andSection 57 of the Cr.P.C. was violated, since he was not producedbefore the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of his actualapprehension. On this ground alone, it is submitted that the applicantmay be released on bail forthwith. Jhs/8/17

#13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for theapplicant that the Post-Mortem Report does not show any externalinjuries on the deceased. The deceased was not known to theapplicant and was resident of Bahur Village, whereas the incidentoccurred at Aundha. There was no intention on the part of theapplicant to commit murder. According to the learned counsel, theprosecution will not be able to establish the guilt of the applicant forthe offence of murder.14.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant –Dattu that the Post-Mortem Report also records the probable cause ofdeath as ‘Intracerebral Hemorrhage’. There is no external injurynoted on the chest or abdomen of the deceased, and only minoroperative injuries on the left knee and right hand are recorded. Thealleged ‘Intracerebral Hemorrhage’ cannot be attributed to theapplicant, who is alleged to have assaulted the deceased on hisstomach. Thus, the medical evidence does not match the allegationslevelled against the applicant regarding the nature of assault. Hence, it is submitted that this is a fit case to grant bail to the applicant –Dattu. Submissions On Behalf Of The State / Learned APP :-15.As against this, the learned APP submits that the present crimeis a fallout of the incident that occurred on the prior date, i.e.Jhs/9/17

25.04.2025, in village Aundha, wherein a quarrel had taken placebetween two groups belonging to the Dalit community and theMaratha community. Though the said dispute was settled on the samedate i.e. 25.04.2025, the Applicant – Dattu, again vitiated theatmosphere by entering the village on the next day and calling uponthe assailants, including the applicants - Swapnil, Ajay and Gajendra. There is a specific allegation of assault against the applicant – Dattu. The eyewitnesses, namely Yadav Dattatraya Birajdar and UmakantBalaji Patwari, have specifically attributed the role of all theapplicants in commission of the said crime. The learned APP furthersubmits that several other witnesses have also spoken about theincident dated 25.04.2025, as well as the incident dated 26.04.2025,and also the role of the present applicants in forming an unlawfulassembly and committing rioting in the village.16.The learned APP further submits that the deceased – Guruling, who was present in the agriculture filed, was caught tightly by theapplicant – Gajendra from behind, the applicant – Swapnil held theright hand of the deceased, whereas the applicant – Ajay held the lefthand of the deceased, and thereafter the applicant – Dattu deliveredfist blows and knee blows to the deceased. The learned APP furthersubmits that a perusal of the Post-Mortem Report would show thatthere were serious injuries in the abdomen region, indicating ‘Intra-Jhs/10/17 abdominal Bleeding of the Spleen’. She further submits that althoughthe probable cause of death is shown as ‘Intracerebral Hemorrhage’the final opinion has been reserved and the final report are awaitedafter Viscera / Blood Chemical Analysis.17.The learned APP further submits that looking to thebackground of the incident, if the applicants are released on bail, there is every likelihood of disturbance to the law and order situatedin the village, and the possibility of the applicants committing furthercognizable offence cannot be ruled out. She, therefore, prays forrejection of all the bail applications. Consideration And Analysis By The Court :-18.I have gone through the charge-sheet minutely, including theevidence collected by the prosecution during the course ofinvestigation. It appears that the incident dated 26.04.2025 is afallout of the incident that occurred on the previous day, i.e.,25.04.2025 at about 08:00 p.m., when there was a trivial quarrel invillage Aundha between persons of the Dalit Community and theMaratha Community during a procession on the occasion of BharatRatna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti. On the next day, the accused– Dattu arrived in the village and another quarrel ensued betweenhim and the Sarpanch over the parking of a motorcycle. As thequarrel escalated, the accused – Dattu called upon the other accusedJhs/11/17 persons, who are resident of village Kasarshirsi. They arrived atvillage Aundha on two-wheelers and four-wheelers and immediatelystarted assaulting the persons present there. Due to the commotion, people started running hither and thither. The accused persons thenallegedly caught hold of the deceased – Guruling and assaulted him.19.The perusal of the statements of the witnesses - YadavDattatraya Birajdar and Umakant Balaji Patwari, Madhav KashinathBiradar and Amar Pandurang Birajdar, would show that the applicant– Gajendra caught hold of the deceased from behind; the applicantSwapnil caught hold of the right hand of the deceased; and theapplicant – Ajay caught hold of the left hand of the deceased, whereas the accused – Dattu assaulted the deceased on his stomachwith fist and kick blows, leaving him lying on the ground. Thedeceased was thereafter taken to the hospital, where he was declareddead.20.Thus, from the evidence collected by the prosecution, the rolethat emerges as being directly attributed in causing fatal injuries isthat of the accused – Dattu. The Post-Mortem Report indicates intra-abdominal bleeding of the spleen, as reflected in Column No. 21,which, in my opinion, constitutes grievous injury and can beattributed to the assault allegedly committed by the applicant –Dattu. Insofar as the role of the applicants – Ajay, Gajendra, SwapnilJhs/12/17 is concerned, there is not a single overt act attributed to them ofinflicting blows on the deceased. Insofar as the allegation of formingan unlawful assembly with a common object is concerned, the samewill have to be proved by leading evidence before the Trial Court. Asnoted earlier, there was a huge commotion at the spot, and theapplicants were chasing other villagers of Aundha. The deceased, who was working in his agriculture field, had merely come out ontothe path to see what was happening. Thus, at least insofar as theapplicants – Ajay, Swapnil and Gajendra are concerned, there doesnot appear to be any intention to commit his murder. Theobservations herein are prima facie in nature, made only for thepurpose of deciding the present applications, and shall not have anybearing on the proceedings before any other Court.21.The applicants – Ajay, Swapnil and Gajendra are alreadybehind bars from the date of arrest in the month of April and May,2025. The investigation is already complete, and the charge-sheet hasalready been filed. The apprehension of the prosecution regardingdisturbance of law and order in the village can be addressed byimposing stringent conditions, while releasing applicants – Ajay, Swapnil and Gajendra on regular bail.22.Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine thesubmissions advanced regarding the alleged illegality of arrest raisedJhs/13/17 on behalf of applicant – Dattu Maroti Gaikwad.23.The learned counsel for the applicant – Dattu has relied uponthe statement of one Rahul Suryawanshi to contend that theapplicant was apprehended on the spot by villagers and handed overto the police, and therefore ought to have been produced before thelearned Magistrate within 24 hours of such apprehension. A carefulreading of the said statement, however, indicates that although itmentions that applicant – Dattu (a resident of Aundha) and applicant– Ajay (resident of Kasarshirshi) were allegedly handed over to policeof Kasarshirshi, the very next line clarifies that the police had takenonly the injured persons, namely Guruling Hasure, Rajabai Wade, Yadav Biradara and Siddheshwar Hasure, in the police vehicle fortreatment. There is no indication that the police had also taken theapplicant – Dattu into custody at that very moment. There is, therefore, no material to infer that the applicant was actually arrestedor detained at the spot.24.In this backdrop, the reliance placed on Hanumant JagannathNazirkar (supra) is misplaced. The arrest panchnama demonstratesthat the applicant – Dattu was arrested on 26.04.2025 at 23:37 hrsand produced before the learned Magistrate on 27.04.2025 at 05:40p.m., i.e., within 24 hours of the recorded time of arrest. Moreover, atno point earlier did the applicant raise any grievance regardingJhs/14/17 violation of his constitutional rights – neither at the time ofproduction before the learned Magistrate, nor by initiating anyindependent proceedings regarding violation of his rights. Evenduring the bail proceedings before the learned Sessions Court, nosuch contention was raised, as could be seen from the bailapplication.25.The Criminal Bail Application No. 89 of 2025, annexed asAnnexure-C to the present proceedings, also does not disclose anypleading alleging illegal arrest. As noted earlier, except for thestatement of Rahul Suryawanshi, no other witnesses’ statements norany other material corroborates the allegation that the applicant –Dattu was actually arrested at the spot. Hence, the ground of ‘illegalarrest’ is misconceived and devoid of merit, and therefore rejected. Asstated earlier, role of Dattu is different from that of accused Ajay, Swapnil and Gajendra. Considering the role of Dattu Gaikwad inentering the village on 26.04.2025, calling other accused on phone, forming unlawful assembly, with intention of rioting and giving fatalblows on the deceased, which is corroborated by medical evidencei.e. ‘Intra-abdominal Bleeding of the Spleen’, I am not inclined torelease the applicant – Dattu Gaikwad on bail.26.Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order:-Jhs/15/17 O R D E RI.The Bail Application No. 1664 of 2025 (Swapnil GulabSuryawanshi), Bail Application No. 1695 of 2025 (AjayMahesh Chounda) and Bail Application No. 1696 of 2025(Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade) are allowed.II.The Bail Application No. 1693 of 2025 filed by Dattu MarotiGaikwad is hereby rejected.III.The applicants Swapnil Gulab Suryawanshi, Ajay MaheshChounda and Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade are hereby directed tobe released on bail, in connection with Crime No. 0088 of2025, dated 26.04.2025, registered with Kasarshirsi PoliceStation, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur, for the offencespunishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 191(2), 190,115(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on theirexecuting a PR Bond of 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand₹only) each, with one surety in the like amount, subject to thefollowing conditions :-A)The applicants Swapnil Gulab Suryawanshi, Ajay MaheshChounda and Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade shall not enter thejurisdiction of Kasarshirsi Police Station, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur, till conclusion of trial, except with priorwritten permission of the Superintendent of Police, Latur, in case of any emergency.B)The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecutionevidence, nor attempt to influence the witnesses in anymanner. Any single reported incident involving theJhs/16/17 applicants of violation of conditions shall entitle theprosecution to move for cancellation of bail.C)The applicants shall furnish their residential address, contact number, and copies of his Aadhaar / PAN Cards tothe Investigating Officer, and shall also provide the names, addresses, and contact numbers of their close relatives forthe purpose of verification.27.In the event, the applicants violate any of the conditionsspecified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.28.Needless to say, the observations made in this order are limitedto the disposal of the present bail applications and the Trial Courtshall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by theobservations made hereinabove.29.All the Bail Applications stand disposed of accordingly. ( MEHROZ K. PATHAN )JUDGEJhs/17/17