Akshay Suresh Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra

by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2026.04.17 18:56:11 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Cri. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 911 of 2026 Akshay Suresh Pawar Aged 29 years, Occ. Labourer, R/o Burud Galli, Newase Road, Baramati, Tal. Baramati, District Pune.

... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Baramati Police Station, Dist. Pune) ... Respondent ---- Mr Ganesh Bhujbal, for the Applicant.

Ms G P Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent / State. GPSI Kashiraj Vitthal Jadhav, Baramati Taluka Police Station, Pune Rural.

---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 16 April 2026 P.C.:

The applicant has preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.493 of 2025, registered at Baramati Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 191(3), 191(2), 190, 189(2) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 29 November 2025, the applicant, along with the co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly and launched an attack on the informant and his associates. During the altercation, the accused, using iron rods, wooden sticks, stones, knives and a sickle, assaulted the informant and his associates, causing injuries in an attempt to kill them.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, asserting the applicant's innocence, contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. He submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and is implicated solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. The injuries sustained are of a simple nature. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The learned Counsel emphasises that the coaccused has already been granted bail. There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant, rendering his custody unnecessary. The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions this Court deems fit to impose.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State opposes the applicant's request for bail. It is submitted that the offence is of a grave and serious nature, and the applicant has been involved

in the crime. The investigation is almost complete. The learned APP raises concerns about potential evidence tampering and witness influence if the applicant is granted bail. 5.

This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival contentions canvassed across the Bar and perused the records. 6.

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the present applicant is not named in the FIR. His implication appears to be subsequent and primarily based on the statement of the coaccused, which, at this stage, requires cautious appreciation and cannot be treated as substantive evidence for the purpose of denying pre-arrest protection. That apart, the nature of injuries sustained by the informant and other injured persons, as reflected from the medical papers, are stated to be simple in nature. Prima facie, this circumstance dilutes the allegation of an intention to commit murder. It is not the case of the prosecution that any recovery or discovery is to be effected from the present applicant. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.

There is no material placed on record to indicate that the applicant is a habitual offender or that he is likely to indulge in similar offences if protected by an order of pre-arrest bail. The co-accused, who is alleged to have participated in the same incident, has already been granted bail. The investigation is almost complete.

of the applicant interfering with the course of investigation is minimal, particularly when appropriate conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of prosecution. Furthermore, the applicant has expressed his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of accusations, the role attributed to the applicant, absence of antecedents, and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) In the event of the applicant's arrest in CR No.493 of 2025, registered at Baramati Taluka Police Station, Pune, he shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

(iii) The applicant, himself or through any other person, shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

7.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. [R.N. Laddha, J.]