Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Hence, the following order:- O R D E R(i)The Bail Application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 3, 4
- Maharashtra Police Act ss. 37(1), 37(3)
Judgment
Bail Appln. No.798/2026:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO.798 OF 2026 Sagar Kishor Gangane and others… APPLICANTSVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra … RESPONDENT.......Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/bMr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for applicants Mr. D.J. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent – State ....… CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.DATE : 8th JUNE, 2026PER COURT :
By this application, the applicants are seeking their release on regular bail in connection with Crime No.509/2025,registered at Tuljapur Police Station, District Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 of the Arms Act, Sections37(1), 37(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act and Sections 109,189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are falsely implicated in the crime. Present FIR is Bail Appln. No.798/2026:: 2 ::politically motivated with a view to falsely implicate the supporters. The applicants have no connection with the crime. The co-accusedare admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2026.Moreover, the injury certificate indicates the nature of injuries as simple. Given that the investigation is complete, further incarceration of the application would be unjustifiable. Therefore, prayed to allow the application.
Per contra, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application submitting that there are criminal antecedents against applicants No.1 and 2 and the offence is serious in nature. Assuch, prayed to reject the application.
When confronted with the applicants' criminal antecedents, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that ApplicantNo. 1 has been acquitted in one offense, while the other remain spending trial. A similar is the status of the applicant No. 2.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. and perusal of the documents, prima facie it appears that, it is a case of over implication and given the nature of the injuries as simple and other accused are admitted to bail, further detention of the applicants would be unjustified. Bail Appln. No.798/2026:: 3 ::
As far as criminal antecedents are concerned, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PrabhakarTewari v. State of U.P. (2020) 11 SCC 648, the mere pendency of criminal cases against an accused cannot by itself be the sole basis for the refusal of bail, if they are otherwise found entitled to bail. Hence, the following order:-
Operative part
O R D E R
(i)The Bail Application is allowed.
(ii)Applicants No.
(1) Sagar Kishor Gangane, (2) Chetan @Chaitanya Mohan Shinde and (3) Shekhar Kiran Gangane, be released on bail upon furnishing P.R. bond in the sum ofRs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand) each, with one or two local solvent sureties, in the like amount, in connection with CrimeNo.509/2025, registered at Tuljapur Police Station, DistrictDharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 37(1), 37(3) of the MaharashtraPolice Act and Sections 109, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the following conditions that :-
(a)The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. Bail Appln. No.798/2026:: 4 ::
(b)The applicants shall remain present on each date, unless exempted by the trial Court.
(c)In the event of breach of the condition, the concernedCourt shall consider the application of the prosecution for cancellation of bail notwithstanding the fact that this Court has passed this order of granting bail to the applicants.
(iii)Needless to state that, the observations rendered herein are confined to the present application, and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) fmp/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the following order:- O R D E R(i)The Bail Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 4; Maharashtra Police Act — ss. 37(1), 37(3).
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.