Bhaiya Alias Sachin Baban Jankar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:33373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1857 OF 2025 Bhaiya Alias Sachin Baban Jankar

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra ...

• Mr. Nayan Ade, Advocate h/f. Mr. S. P. Rathod, Advocate for Applicant • Ms. R. R. Tandale, APP for Respondent - State ...

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 25.11.2025 PER COURT :

1.

The applicant has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 208 of 2025, registered with Bhoom Police Station, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Dharashiv on 08.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 351(3), 324(4), 49, 118(1), 190, 118(2), 191(3), 191(2) and 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

On 05.09.2025, the informant, Bajrang Anna Goykar (37), along with his cousin Swapnil Sakharam Goykar and Dnyaneshwar Anil Kargal, was returning from Bhoom to Ghatnandur on a motorcycle. Near Sukata, they observed land being excavated with a JCB. While passing the field of Amol Galande, co-accused Bhaiya 1/4

Jankar and Jadhav, employees of a windmill company, stopped them in a white car. Bhaiya Jankar assaulted the informant, broke his mobile phone, and called four others-Pandurang Pandhare, Sanket Salve, Sandip Sarvade, and Bharat Kamble. The co-accused then physically attacked the informant and his companions with sticks, iron rods, a belt, and a tommy, causing serious injuries. Jadhav threatened the informant with death. Swapnil Goykar was also injured while trying to intervene, and Dnyaneshwar Kargal sustained injuries as well. They were rescued by Ramesh Pawar and Sachin Humbe and taken to Jagdalemama Hospital, Barshi. The informant stated that the assault was carried out at the instigation of Pradip Pise. Crime was registered against all the co-accused and the present applicant based on this statement.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the role of the applicant is similar to that of Pradip Pise, who was already granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 18.09.2025. The learned counsel further relies upon the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in regular bail dated 03.10.2025, in the case of accused Bharat Kamble, Pandurang Pandhare, Sanket Salve, and Sandip Sarvade, who were granted regular bail.

2/4

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant, Bhaiya @ Sachin Baban Jankar, was attributed the same role and, therefore, may be given the benefit of parity. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet is yet to be filed. 5.

As against this, the learned APP submits that the role of the applicant is different from those co-accused who have already been released on either anticipatory or regular bail. The applicant, Bhaiya @ Sachin Baban Jankar, allegedly assaulted the complainant, Bajrang, with an iron rod and also assaulted another injured witness, Swapnil, on his legs and hands. The learned APP further submits that the applicant has a criminal history, with two previous cases registered against him, and therefore, the bail application may be rejected.

6.

I have perused the FIR, the investigation papers and the injury certificates of Swapnil and Bajrang. The orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 03.10.2025, granting regular bail to Bharat Kamble, Pandurang Pandhare, Sanket Salve, and Sandip Sarvade, specifically note the role of the present applicant as one of the main assailants. Similarly, the anticipatory bail order dated 18.09.2025 in favour of Pradip Pise also observes that the applicant, Bhaiya, was one of the main assailants. The injury certificates reveal that both Bajrang and Swapnil sustained severe injuries to their 3/4

hands and legs. The applicant is also having previous two criminal cases registered against him. Considering the parameters for granting anticipatory bail which differs from those applicable to regular bail, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the present applicant 7.

In view of the above, the application is rejected and disposed of accordingly.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. ) 4/4