Shivdatta Vittalrao Pandit v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:12606 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 200 OF 2025 Shivdatta Vittalrao Pandit ....Applicant

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others .....Respondent .....

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.A. Bobade Adv.for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr. Prathviraj A. Dhakane. APP for respondent No.1 : Mr. P.D. Patil CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :- 1.

The applicant has filed the present application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents for violation of the order dated 24.9.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed while granting bail to the respondents herein in Crime No. 246 of 2025, registered at Shirur Kasar Police Station, Dist. Beed for the offence punishable under sections 108, 80, 85, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2.

Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Bobade, submits that even though there was a condition not to tamper with the evidence or contact the complainant/witnesses or any person concerned with the case, the respondents have assaulted the complainant Ashabai Pandit, mother of the victim Karishma, who was married to Sachin and therefore, a NC report was registered at the behest of Ashabai being NCR

{2} No. 459 of 2025 on 9.10.2025.

3.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Bobade that thus, there is a clear violation of the orders dated 24.9.2027 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed granting anticipatory bail to the respondents Bhagwan and Tukaram. Thus, this Court may exercise the powers under section 482(2)(ii) of BNSS. for cancellation of bail of the respondents.

4.

As against this, Mr. Dhakane, learned counsel for the respondents/accused strongly oppose the application on the ground that the present application is frivolous and filed only with an intention to harass the applicant, who are relatives of Sachin, who was the husband of the victim Karishma i.e. daughter of the applicant. 5.

The learned counsel further submits that the incident dated 9.10.2025 is wrongly purported by the applicant as an incident of threat or assault at the behest of the accused/respondents - Tukaram and Bhagwan. Whereas, it was the applicant and his relatives who had assaulted the respondent Tukaram on 9.10.2025 and as such, the FIR to that effect is filed by the accused/respondents herein bearing FIR No. 293 OF 2025 dated 20.10.2025 for the incident dated 9.10.2025. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is no violation of the conditions imposed by the respondents and as such, the allegations are baseless and hence, the application for cancellation is liable to be rejected.

6.

The learned APP informs that the Non Congnizable case No. 459 of 2025 is filed at the behest of the complainant, however, no further application seeking permission under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution. The learned APP further confirms that there is

{3} registration of FIR at the behest of the respondent No.3 Tukaram, bearing FIR No. 293 of 2025 for the incident dated 9.10.2025. He, therefore, submits that appropriate orders may be passed. 7.

I have gone through the Non Cognizable Offence No. 459 of 2025 dated 9.10.2025 filed at the behest of Ashabai i.e. wife of the present applicant Shivdatta. Perusal of the said NC would show that there are allegations about the respondent Tukaram and Bhagwan of abusing and assaulting by fist and kick blows on the date of incident i.e. 9.10.2025. However, there is nothing on record to show that the prosecution had moved an application seeking permission to further investigate the non cognizable offence under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate.

8.

On the other hand, the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would show that the respondent Tukaram has registered an FIR for the same incident dated 9.10.2025 bearing FIR No. 293 of 2025 though belatedly on 20.10.2025 alleging assault at the behest of the present applicant Shivdatta and his family members. The said FIR is registered for the offence under Section 118-2 of the BNS for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of dangerous weapons. There are injury certificates filed on record which would show that the complainant Tukaram had sustained about 9 injuries by means of hard and blunt object on the same day of incident i.e. 9.10.2025 issued by the Rural Hospital, Ramoha, Taluka Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed. Further medical treatment papers are also annexed alongwith reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.

3 and 4 which would suggest that respondent Tukaram was required to undergo treatment for a long period and it is only after he was discharged on 20.10.2025 as could be seen from the Discharge Card issued by the Rural Hospital, Beed, that the respondent Tukaram has registered the FIR against the applicant which is registered as FIR No.

{4} 293 at Police Station, Shirur Kasar.

9.

Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the respondent Tukaram himself was allegedly assaulted by the applicant Shivdatta and his relatives, it does not appear that the respondent No.3 Tukaram has violated any of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide order dated 24.9.2025.

10.

The scope for interference in the application for cancellation of bail is very narrow. Unless the applicant is able to show any supervening circumstances which call for interference of this court, this Court would normally not interfere in the order granting bail. On the other hand, it is seen that there are allegations made by the respondents against the applicant for voluntarily causing hurt by means of dangerous weapons, which has culminated into filing the FIR which is registered at the behest of respondent Tukaram. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present application for cancellation of bail. The application is hereby rejected.

[MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE.

grt/-