Rishikesh Surendra Vargad v. The State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Date:

2026.05.09 12:31:39 +0530 LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN lgc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1240 OF 2026 Rishikesh Surendra Vargad : Applicant Versus.

The State of Maharashtra : Respondent ---- Ms. Saili Dhuru for the Applicant.

Ms. Anagha Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : 07 MAY 2026 PC:- 1.

Heard Ms.Saili Dhuru, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Anagha Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent/State.

2.

By the present Applicant, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in FIR No. 105 of 2026, dated 13 February 2026, registered with Bhiwandi City Police Station, Dist. Thane, for offences punishable under Sections 109, 189(2), 189(3), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, r/w Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act, and Sections 135 and 37(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act.

3.

There are 11 named accused in the FIR and 10 to 12 unknown accused. Applicant is Accused No. 10 in the FIR. 4.

The case of the prosecution is that a discussion between the Informant and the accused persons named in the FIR turned violent, resulting in an assault on the Informant and Bunty Paikrao, who were attacked by the Applicant and others with a sword, an iron rod and a sickle. The role assigned to the Applicant is that of using a sickle in the said assault. 5.

Ms. Saili Dhuru, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that even if the allegations against the Applicant of chasing the Informant with a sickle in his hand are accepted, the charged offences would not be attracted against the Applicant. She submits that the injuries sustained by the Informant and Bunty Paikrao in the assault are not attributable to the Applicant. She states that the allegation of assault is against the other co-accused. She therefore seeks pre-arrest bail.

6.

Ms. Anagha Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent/State, submits that the incident in which the Informant and Bunty Paikrao were assaulted is specified in the FIR. She submits that the Applicant is an active member of the group that assaulted the Informant and the other victim, using deadly and sharp weapons. She submits that the Applicant assaulted the Informant with a sickle and was chasing the Informant with the sickle in his hand. She submits that the assault and the Applicant's use of the sickle are clearly

captured in the CCTV footage. She submits that the offence committed by the Applicant and other co-accused is a serious offence and that the Applicant's custodial interrogation is required. She further submits that the Applicant is required for the purpose of recovery of the sickle and other weapons used in the said assault.

7.

Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, further, the Applicant being an active participant in the assault on the Informant/victim in which lethal weapons like a sword and a sickle were used, this is not a case for considering the request of the Applicant.

8.

Applicant is not entitled to any indulgence.

9.

Anticipatory Bail Application No.1240 of 2026 is dismissed.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)