Ravan Devidas Rasal v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2026:BHC-AUG:17742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 48 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 500 OF 2026 RAVAN DEVIDAS RASAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Salunke Sudarshan J. APP for Respondents-State : Mr. N. R. Dayma.
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 21.04.2026 PER COURT :- 1.
Heard both sides.
2.
The applicant is seeking bail in respect of offence bearing Crime No.34 of 2025, registered with Lohara Police Station, District Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/25, 3/27, 5/25 of Arms Act.
3.
It is reported to the police by Nachiket who happened to be brother of Nitin that incident took place on 06.02.2025 after 3.00 p.m. near the lake. His brother was not seen near about and he was not even picking phone. On search, he was found lying and having received two fire arm injuries. The law was set into motion and eye witness Ram Rasal was traced out and
his statement is recorded. Applicant is arrested on 07.02.2025. Charge-sheet is filed on 05.05.2025.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is falsely implicated in the offence. No incriminating material is available. Eye witness is not reliable. His client is ready to co-operate for expeditious disposal of the trial. 5.
Per contra, learned APP refers to the statement of eye witness. He has categorically stated the incriminating role of deadly assault made by applicant on the deceased by firing two shots at point blank. The weapon has also been recovered from the applicant. In all six serious offences are registered against the applicant.
6.
First Information Report refers that eye witness Ram was working in the field of informant and the deceased. He had a reason to be in the agricultural field and along with deceased. Eye witness has categorically stated as to how deceased and him were proceeding to the field after having lunch and they were intercepted by the applicant who was armed with pistol. The applicant is shot by two bullets. It is evident that intention is to eliminate the deceased.
7.
The motive and the mens rea are spelt out from the material collected during the investigation. In offence bearing Crime No.301 of 2024 deceased was the witness against the applicant and that was spelt out by him before firing. Besides that there are six serious offences pitted against the applicant. Out of them, he was convicted in one offence bearing Crime No.53 of 2011. Applicant is a habitual offender. There is every possibility of tampering and influencing the witnesses. No case is made out to grant bail.
8.
Bail application is rejected.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) ...
vmk/-