Judgment · High Court · 2025
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The Application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 4, 25
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 s. 135
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. On account of the dispute over the Bandh rasta leading to the agricultural field, the incident of assault took place between the two groups on the morning of 04.08.2025. A counter FIR has also been lodged for the same incident. The role attributed to…
Judgment
........ Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan – Advocate for the Applicants Mr. B. B. Bhise – APP for the State ........... CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 PER COURT : -
Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. Perused the papers.
This Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the Applicants seeking Anticipatory Bail, as they are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 0408 of 2025 registered with Selu Police Station, District Parbhani, for offences punishable under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2 902ABA1571.2025.odt
Operative part
On account of the dispute over the Bandh rasta leading to the agricultural field, the incident of assault took place between the two groups on the morning of 04.08.2025. A counter FIR has also been lodged for the same incident. The role attributed to the present Applicants is that, they supplied deadly weapons to the Co-accused, and threw chilli powder in the eyes of the injured witnesses. The papers, particularly the medical papers available with the learned APP, do not indicate the chilli powder on the injured. The omnibus allegations are made against the Applicants, who are women. In view of this, I am inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Applicants. Hence, the following order is passed. [i] The Application is allowed. ORDER [ii] In the event of arrest of the Applicants, namely, Kamal w/o. Bhaskar Ghule, Daivshala w/o. Baban Ghule, Aruna w/o. Balasaheb Ghule, Savita w/o. Rohidas Ghule, Renuka w/o. Pralhad Ghule, Sakhubai w/o. Udhav Nagre, in connection with Crime No. 0408 of 2025 registered with Selu Police Station, District Parbhani, for offences punishable under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, they 3 902ABA1571.2025.odt be released on bail on their furnishing P.B. of Rs. 15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousand] each, with one surety in the like amount. [iii] The Applicants shall attend Selu Police Station, District Parbhani, on every Saturday between 02:00 pm to 06:00 pm, till the Charge-sheet is filed. [iv] The Applicants are directed to co-operate with the Investigating Agency. [v] The Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. [vi] The Application stands disposed off. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2025 14:33:58
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 4, 25; Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Sep 2025. The bench was NEERAJ P DHOTE.
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.