[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dattu Maroti Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32739
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1695 OF 2025
Ajay Mahesh Chounda,
Age : 25 Years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o. : Kasarshirsi, Taluka : Nilanga,
District : Latur. ... Applicant
(Orig. Accused No. 2)
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi,
Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur. ... Respondent
...
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1696 OF 2025
Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade
Age : 30 Years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o. : Kasarshirsi, Taluka : Nilanga,
District : Latur. ... Applicant
(Orig. Accused No. 6)
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi,
Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur. ... Respondent
...
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1664 OF 2025
Swapnil Gulab Suryawanshi
Age : 33 Years, Occupation : Education
R/o. : Kasarshirsi, Taluka : Nilanga
District : Latur ... Applicant
(Orig. Accused No. 3)
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Jhs/ 1/17
Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi,
Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur. ... Respondent
...
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1693 OF 2025
Dattu Maroti Gaikwad
Age : 41 Years, Occupation : Labour
R/o. : Aundha, Taluka : Nilanga,
District : Latur.
... Applicant
(Orig. Accused No. 1)
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi,
Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur. ... Respondent
...
• Mr. D. P. Munde, Advocate for Applicants in BA Nos. 1695 &
1696 of 2025
• Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant in BA No. 1664 of
2025
• Mr. Pawar Hemantkumar F., Advocate for Applicant in BA No.
1693 of 2025
• Ms. D. S. Jape, APP for Respondent - State
...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 12, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 28, 2025.
PER COURT :-
1. The applicants have filed the separate bail applications seeking
regular bail in connection with First Information Report bearing
Crime No. 0088 of 2025, dated 26.04.2025, registered with
Jhs/ 2/17
Kasarshirsi Police Station, Kasarshirsi, Taluka - Nilanga, District -
Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2),
191(2), 190, 115(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The FIR was lodged by the informant, Gundappa Shivappa
Hasure, stating that on 26.04.2025 at about 12:00 noon, while he
was working in his farm, he received a phone call from his wife
informing him about an assault on his nephew - Guruling Ashok
Hasure, who was lying unconscious. The complainant immediately
rushed towards village - Aundha, where he was informed that the
villagers had taken his nephew - Guruling, to the hospital. The
complainant made enquiries with the persons present at the spot,
upon which Amar Pandurang Birajdar, Narsing Nivrutti Motibane,
Balaji Vasant Biradar informed him about an earlier incident dated
25.04.2025, at village Aundha, wherein a scuffle had taken place
between persons belonging to the Dalit community and the Maratha
community, during procession on the occasion of Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar Jayanti. However, the said dispute was settled on the same
date, i.e. 25.04.2025.
3. It was further informed to the complainant that one of the
villagers from Aundha, namely Dattu Maroti Gaikwad, has called the
co-accused persons, namely - Ajay Mahesh Chounda, Swapnil Gulab
Suryawanshi, Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade, Azahar Mohammad, Aditya
Jhs/ 3/17
More, all residents of Kasarshirsi, along with a few other persons who
had started quarreling with Yadav Dattatraya Birajdar and Umakant
Balaji Patwari, regarding the incident dated 25.04.2025. It was
further informed that the aforesaid accused persons started assaulting
Yadav Dattatraya Birajdar and Umakant Balaji Patwari by giving kick
and fist blows. When the said persons attempted to flee, the
assailants chased them. As the situation escalated, the villagers also
started running hither and thither.
4. The deceased - Guruling (nephew of the complainant -
Gundappa), who was working in his field, unaware of the scuffle
came on road to see what is going on and was allegedly caught by
the assailants. On the ground that he belonged to the same village,
the said assailants assaulted him and caused his death. Consequently,
the present crime came to be registered at the instance of the first
informant - Gundappa Shivappa Hasure (Uncle of the deceased -
Guruling).
Submissions On Behalf Of Applicant - Swapnil Gulab Suryawanshi :-
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant -
Swapnil Gulab Suryawanshi, that the applicant has been falsely
implicated and arrested in the present case, and that there is no
credible evidence to connect him with the alleged offence. It is
Jhs/ 4/17
submitted that the statements of the witnesses, namely Yadav
Dattatraya Birajdar and Umakant Balaji Patwari, which are relied
upon by the prosecution, are verbatim and identical, and were
recorded two days after the incident, reflecting an afterthought with
a motive to take revenge against the applicant - Swapnil. It is further
submitted that although the applicant is alleged to be present during
the incident dated 25.04.2025, his name has been deliberately
included in the incident dated 26.04.2025, as he was about to get
married a week thereafter, and the complainant party intended to
implicate him owing to the prior dispute dated 25.04.2025.
6. According to the learned counsel, the main allegations of
assault are primarily against the main accused - Dattu Maroti
Gaikwad, who had assaulted the deceased on his stomach with fist
and knee blows. Whereas, the applicant - Swapnil, is attributed only
the role of holding right hand of the deceased. No weapon is alleged
to have been used by the applicant, and even from a bare reading of
the FIR, there appears to be no intention on the part of the applicant
- Swapnil to commit the murder of the deceased - Guruling Hasure.
7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant
- Swapnil that, looking to the nature of the evidence collected by the
Investigating Officer against the Applicant - Swapnil, the offence of
committing murder is not likely to be proved as against him. It is
Jhs/ 5/17
submitted that the applicant - Swapnil is not related to any person
from the village and had, in fact, pacified the quarrel on 25.04.2025.
The only allegation against the applicant is that he had held the right
hand of the deceased, without there being any overt act attributed to
him.
8. The learned counsel submits that the applicant may, therefore,
be released on bail, as he is ready to abide by any stringent
conditions imposed by this Court and undertakes to attend the trial
regularly. The applicant - Swapnil has deep roots in the society, and
therefore, there is no likelihood of his fleeing from ends of justice, or
remaining unavailable for trial. It is further submitted that there are
no criminal antecedents to the discredit of the applicant - Swapnil.
Therefore, in this case, this Court may exercise its discretionary
powers in his favour. The applicant is arrested on 03.05.2025, and as
the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, no
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant - Swapnil
further detained.
Submissions On Behalf Of Applicants - Ajay Mahesh Chounda And
Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade :-
9. The learned counsel for the applicants in BA No. 1695 of 2025
and BA No. 1696 of 2025, appearing for the accused/applicants -
Ajay Mahesh Chounda and Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade, submits that
Jhs/ 6/17
insofar as the role attributed to the present applicants is concerned,
the applicant - Gajendra is alleged to have caught hold of the
deceased from behind, whereas the applicant - Ajay is alleged to
have caught hold of the left hand of the deceased. It is submitted that
the fatal fist and knee blows were allegedly given by the accused -
Dattu Maroti Gaikwad. The applicant - Ajay is shown to have been
arrested on 26.04.2025, i.e. on the date of the incident, whereas the
applicant - Gajendra is shown to have been arrested on 10.05.2025.
10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for
applicants - Ajay and Gajendra that there was no intention of the
applicants - Ajay and Gajendra, who are stated to have merely held
the deceased by his left hand and from behind, respectively. As per
the complaint, the deceased - Guruling was in his agriculture field,
when he was caught unaware by the assailants. The accused
/applicants Ajay and Gajendra did not use any weapon to inflict any
bodily injury upon the deceased, nor are they attributed with any
overt acts of giving fist or knee blows, which are specifically
attributed to the co-accused Dattu Maroti Gaikwad.
11. The learned counsel further submits that the applicants - Ajay
and Gajendra have no criminal antecedents against them and they
have deep roots in the society and would therefore, not flee away
from the ends of justice. They are ready to abide by any stringent
Jhs/ 7/17
conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that
they may be released on bail. Since Ajay is arrested on 26.04.2025
and Gajendra is arrested on 10.05.2025, and the investigation is
complete and charge-sheet is filed, further incarceration would be a
pre-trial punishment.
Submissions On Behalf Of Applicant - Dattu Maroti Gaikwad :-
12. The learned counsel for the applicant in BA No. 1693 of 2025 -
Dattu Maroti Gaikwad submits that, from the the statement of
Balasaheb Narwate, recorded by the Investigating Officer during the
course of the investigation, it could be seen that the
accused/applicant - Dattu was caught on the spot on the date of
incident i.e. 26.04.2025. However, the arrest panchnama shows that
the the applicant - Dattu was formally arrested on 26.04.2025 at
about 21:37 hrs. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment in
Hanumant Jagannath Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra; WP No. 54 of
2025, decided on 27.06.2025 to contend that the arrest itself being
illegal, as the applicant's constitutional right under Article 22(2) and
Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. was violated, since he was not produced
before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of his actual
apprehension. On this ground alone, it is submitted that the applicant
may be released on bail forthwith.
Jhs/ 8/17
13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the
applicant that the Post-Mortem Report does not show any external
injuries on the deceased. The deceased was not known to the
applicant and was resident of Bahur Village, whereas the incident
occurred at Aundha. There was no intention on the part of the
applicant to commit murder. According to the learned counsel, the
prosecution will not be able to establish the guilt of the applicant for
the offence of murder.
14. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant -
Dattu that the Post-Mortem Report also records the probable cause of
death as 'Intracerebral Hemorrhage'. There is no external injury
noted on the chest or abdomen of the deceased, and only minor
operative injuries on the left knee and right hand are recorded. The
alleged 'Intracerebral Hemorrhage' cannot be attributed to the
applicant, who is alleged to have assaulted the deceased on his
stomach. Thus, the medical evidence does not match the allegations
levelled against the applicant regarding the nature of assault. Hence,
it is submitted that this is a fit case to grant bail to the applicant -
Dattu.
Submissions On Behalf Of The State / Learned APP :-
15. As against this, the learned APP submits that the present crime
is a fallout of the incident that occurred on the prior date, i.e.
Jhs/ 9/17
25.04.2025, in village Aundha, wherein a quarrel had taken place
between two groups belonging to the Dalit community and the
Maratha community. Though the said dispute was settled on the same
date i.e. 25.04.2025, the Applicant - Dattu, again vitiated the
atmosphere by entering the village on the next day and calling upon
the assailants, including the applicants - Swapnil, Ajay and Gajendra.
There is a specific allegation of assault against the applicant - Dattu.
The eyewitnesses, namely Yadav Dattatraya Birajdar and Umakant
Balaji Patwari, have specifically attributed the role of all the
applicants in commission of the said crime. The learned APP further
submits that several other witnesses have also spoken about the
incident dated 25.04.2025, as well as the incident dated 26.04.2025,
and also the role of the present applicants in forming an unlawful
assembly and committing rioting in the village.
16. The learned APP further submits that the deceased - Guruling,
who was present in the agriculture filed, was caught tightly by the
applicant - Gajendra from behind, the applicant - Swapnil held the
right hand of the deceased, whereas the applicant - Ajay held the left
hand of the deceased, and thereafter the applicant - Dattu delivered
fist blows and knee blows to the deceased. The learned APP further
submits that a perusal of the Post-Mortem Report would show that
there were serious injuries in the abdomen region, indicating 'Intra-
Jhs/ 10/17
abdominal Bleeding of the Spleen'. She further submits that although
the probable cause of death is shown as 'Intracerebral Hemorrhage'
the final opinion has been reserved and the final report are awaited
after Viscera / Blood Chemical Analysis.
17. The learned APP further submits that looking to the
background of the incident, if the applicants are released on bail,
there is every likelihood of disturbance to the law and order situated
in the village, and the possibility of the applicants committing further
cognizable offence cannot be ruled out. She, therefore, prays for
rejection of all the bail applications.
Consideration And Analysis By The Court :-
18. I have gone through the charge-sheet minutely, including the
evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of
investigation. It appears that the incident dated 26.04.2025 is a
fallout of the incident that occurred on the previous day, i.e.,
25.04.2025 at about 08:00 p.m., when there was a trivial quarrel in
village Aundha between persons of the Dalit Community and the
Maratha Community during a procession on the occasion of Bharat
Ratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti. On the next day, the accused
- Dattu arrived in the village and another quarrel ensued between
him and the Sarpanch over the parking of a motorcycle. As the
quarrel escalated, the accused - Dattu called upon the other accused
Jhs/ 11/17
persons, who are resident of village Kasarshirsi. They arrived at
village Aundha on two-wheelers and four-wheelers and immediately
started assaulting the persons present there. Due to the commotion,
people started running hither and thither. The accused persons then
allegedly caught hold of the deceased - Guruling and assaulted him.
19. The perusal of the statements of the witnesses - Yadav
Dattatraya Birajdar and Umakant Balaji Patwari, Madhav Kashinath
Biradar and Amar Pandurang Birajdar, would show that the applicant
- Gajendra caught hold of the deceased from behind; the applicant
Swapnil caught hold of the right hand of the deceased; and the
applicant - Ajay caught hold of the left hand of the deceased,
whereas the accused - Dattu assaulted the deceased on his stomach
with fist and kick blows, leaving him lying on the ground. The
deceased was thereafter taken to the hospital, where he was declared
dead.
20. Thus, from the evidence collected by the prosecution, the role
that emerges as being directly attributed in causing fatal injuries is
that of the accused - Dattu. The Post-Mortem Report indicates intra-
abdominal bleeding of the spleen, as reflected in Column No. 21,
which, in my opinion, constitutes grievous injury and can be
attributed to the assault allegedly committed by the applicant -
Dattu. Insofar as the role of the applicants - Ajay, Gajendra, Swapnil
Jhs/ 12/17
is concerned, there is not a single overt act attributed to them of
inflicting blows on the deceased. Insofar as the allegation of forming
an unlawful assembly with a common object is concerned, the same
will have to be proved by leading evidence before the Trial Court. As
noted earlier, there was a huge commotion at the spot, and the
applicants were chasing other villagers of Aundha. The deceased,
who was working in his agriculture field, had merely come out onto
the path to see what was happening. Thus, at least insofar as the
applicants - Ajay, Swapnil and Gajendra are concerned, there does
not appear to be any intention to commit his murder. The
observations herein are prima facie in nature, made only for the
purpose of deciding the present applications, and shall not have any
bearing on the proceedings before any other Court.
21. The applicants - Ajay, Swapnil and Gajendra are already
behind bars from the date of arrest in the month of April and May,
2025. The investigation is already complete, and the charge-sheet has
already been filed. The apprehension of the prosecution regarding
disturbance of law and order in the village can be addressed by
imposing stringent conditions, while releasing applicants - Ajay,
Swapnil and Gajendra on regular bail.
22. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine the
submissions advanced regarding the alleged illegality of arrest raised
Jhs/ 13/17
on behalf of applicant - Dattu Maroti Gaikwad.
23. The learned counsel for the applicant - Dattu has relied upon
the statement of one Rahul Suryawanshi to contend that the
applicant was apprehended on the spot by villagers and handed over
to the police, and therefore ought to have been produced before the
learned Magistrate within 24 hours of such apprehension. A careful
reading of the said statement, however, indicates that although it
mentions that applicant - Dattu (a resident of Aundha) and applicant
- Ajay (resident of Kasarshirshi) were allegedly handed over to police
of Kasarshirshi, the very next line clarifies that the police had taken
only the injured persons, namely Guruling Hasure, Rajabai Wade,
Yadav Biradara and Siddheshwar Hasure , in the police vehicle for
treatment. There is no indication that the police had also taken the
applicant - Dattu into custody at that very moment. There is,
therefore, no material to infer that the applicant was actually arrested
or detained at the spot.
24. In this backdrop, the reliance placed on Hanumant Jagannath
Nazirkar (supra) is misplaced. The arrest panchnama demonstrates
that the applicant - Dattu was arrested on 26.04.2025 at 23:37 hrs
and produced before the learned Magistrate on 27.04.2025 at 05:40
p.m., i.e., within 24 hours of the recorded time of arrest. Moreover, at
no point earlier did the applicant raise any grievance regarding
Jhs/ 14/17
violation of his constitutional rights - neither at the time of
production before the learned Magistrate, nor by initiating any
independent proceedings regarding violation of his rights. Even
during the bail proceedings before the learned Sessions Court, no
such contention was raised, as could be seen from the bail
application.
25. The Criminal Bail Application No. 89 of 2025, annexed as
Annexure-C to the present proceedings, also does not disclose any
pleading alleging illegal arrest. As noted earlier, except for the
statement of Rahul Suryawanshi, no other witnesses' statements nor
any other material corroborates the allegation that the applicant -
Dattu was actually arrested at the spot. Hence, the ground of 'illegal
arrest' is misconceived and devoid of merit, and therefore rejected. As
stated earlier, role of Dattu is different from that of accused Ajay,
Swapnil and Gajendra. Considering the role of Dattu Gaikwad in
entering the village on 26.04.2025, calling other accused on phone,
forming unlawful assembly, with intention of rioting and giving fatal
blows on the deceased, which is corroborated by medical evidence
i.e. 'Intra-abdominal Bleeding of the Spleen' , I am not inclined to
release the applicant - Dattu Gaikwad on bail.
26. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order:-
Jhs/ 15/17
ORDER
I. The Bail Application No. 1664 of 2025 (Swapnil Gulab
Suryawanshi), Bail Application No. 1695 of 2025 (Ajay
Mahesh Chounda) and Bail Application No. 1696 of 2025
(Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade) are allowed.
II. The Bail Application No. 1693 of 2025 filed by Dattu Maroti
Gaikwad is hereby rejected.
III. The applicants Swapnil Gulab Suryawanshi, Ajay Mahesh
Chounda and Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade are hereby directed to
be released on bail, in connection with Crime No. 0088 of
2025, dated 26.04.2025, registered with Kasarshirsi Police
Station, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur, for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 191(2), 190,
115(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on their
executing a PR Bond of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) each, with one surety in the like amount, subject to the
following conditions :-
A) The applicants Swapnil Gulab Suryawanshi, Ajay Mahesh
Chounda and Gajendra Shivraj Sarvade shall not enter the
jurisdiction of Kasarshirsi Police Station, Taluka Nilanga,
District Latur, till conclusion of trial, except with prior
written permission of the Superintendent of Police, Latur,
in case of any emergency.
B) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, nor attempt to influence the witnesses in any
manner. Any single reported incident involving the
applicants of violation of conditions shall entitle the
prosecution to move for cancellation of bail.
C) The applicants shall furnish their residential address,
contact number, and copies of his Aadhaar / PAN Cards to
the Investigating Officer, and shall also provide the names,
addresses, and contact numbers of their close relatives for
the purpose of verification.
27. In the event, the applicants violate any of the conditions
specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.
28. Needless to say, the observations made in this order are limited
to the disposal of the present bail applications and the Trial Court
shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the
observations made hereinabove.
29. All the Bail Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN )
JUDGE
