Rohit Vaijinath Bhosale v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

923-ABA-96-2026 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 96 OF 2026 Rohit Vaijinath Bhosale ...Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra And Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Abhay Jadhavar, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. Anand Subhash Shalgaonkar, APP for the Respondents-State. Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2026.02.20 16:06:41 +0530

CORAM

:

NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE :

18th FEBRUARY, 2026 P.C.

SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR 1.

By this application, applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.183 of 2025 registered with Vairag Police Station, District: Solapur (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 353(3), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2.

The prosecution case in short is that the applicant along with four co-accused assaulted Anand Babasaheb Chabukswar with axe, sword, iron rod and iron pipe. The applicant assaulted with sword on the right leg of the informant. The other co-accused used the weapons carried by them. One of the co-accused Sanket assaulted the informant by iron rod on his left leg. 3.

Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that though the allegations are made by the informant in the FIR that the applicant Sajakali Jamadar

923-ABA-96-2026 (CR).DOC assaulted him with sword on right leg, the injury certificate shows that incised wound is caused on the left leg, therefore the allegations made against the applicant are false and he is falsely implicated in the crime. He further submits that since charge-sheet in the present crime is filed on 19.08.2025, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. He further submits that counter FIR is lodged by the side of the applicant and co-accused in the present crime against the informant's side.

4.

Perusal of the charge-sheet shows that there are specific allegations against the applicant that he has assaulted with sword on the leg of the informant. May be the informant has stated that the applicant assaulted on right leg, but in fact the injury is caused on left leg is not sufficient to doubt the allegations made by the informant in the FIR. There are two eye witnesses to the incident and they support the allegations made in the FIR that the applicant assaulted with sword. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and serious allegations levelled against the applicant and as the sword is yet to be recovered, this is not a fit case to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The application being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Sajakali Jamadar