Rahul Satish Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2026:BHC-AUG:19239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 652 OF 2026 Rahul s/o Satish Pawar, Age 25 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Near Manjara Karkhana, 12 No. Pati, Latur, Tq. & Dist.Latur ...

Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Officer, Police MIDC Latur, Tq. & Dist.

Latue.

...

Respondent.

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. More P.P.

A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. N. R.Dayma

CORAM

: SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 28.04.2026 PER COURT :

Heard both sides.

2.

The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 63/2026, registered with M.I.D.C. Latur Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 352, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Section 4, 25 of the Arms Act. He is arrested on 18.02.2026.

3.

Though investigation is underway, it is submitted that no material is collected against the applicant. Only role of the applicant was that he was auto-rickshaw driver, in which the main perpetrators arrived at the spot and they were armed with weapons. He is not stated to be concerned with the assailants and the victims. Except his presence, absolutely no overt act is 1/3

committed by him. The coordinate bench released similarly situated coaccused Samarth vide order dated 06.04.2026. 4.

The learned A.P.P. submits that the statement of Krishna, Vijay and Saurabh unequivocally state the presence of the applicant, who brought in his auto-rickshaw the other co-accused and they were armed with weapon. The accused hatched a conspiracy of eliminating injured informant. Considering the nature of injury, it was an attempt to commit murder. The auto-rickshaw is recovered at the instance of the applicant. His exact role can be ascertained during the course of trial. But no case is made out to enlarge him on bail.

5.

I have gone through F.I.R. and the statements of Krishna, Vijay and Saurabh. Only role attributed to applicant is that he was the driver of auto rickshaw, in which co-accused arrived at the spot with weapons. No further participation is attributed to him. Even pelting of the stones is also not attributed to him. Under such circumstances, I find that it is exceptional to cause indulgence, though the investigation is underway. 6.

I have also gone through order passed in case of Samarth Bhagwat Kande by this Court on 06.04.2026. Under same set of facts, this Court granted bail to the co-accused. No criminal antecedents are reported against the present applicant also. I propose to adopt the same reasons, as is done previously by this Court in case of Samarth Bhagwat Kande. I, therefore, pass following order.

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

(ii) Applicant Rahul Satish Pawar shall be released on bail in connection Crime No.63 of 2026, registered with MIDC Latur Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 352, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4, 25 of Arms Act, on furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands 2/3

only) with one solvent surety of like amount on the following conditions : (a) The applicant shall stay away from Latur till filing of the charge-sheet and he shall furnish his address and mobile number/s to the Investigating Officer. (b) The applicant shall report concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet.

(c) The applicant shall not contact the prosecution witnesses and tamper the prosecution evidence. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 3/3