[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Banti Alia Abhishekh Kashinath ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 8 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5526
1 27.apeal.414.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 414/2025
Banti Alia Abhishekh Kashinath Hiranwade
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Anr.
.................................................................................................................................. .
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order
or directions and Registrar's orders
...................................................................................................................................................
Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocated a/b. Mr. M. N. Agrawal, Advocate for
Appellant.
Mr. G. S. Umale, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.
Mr. R. R. Rathod, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATED : 08.04.2026
1. This is an Appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'SC & ST Act') against the
order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Yavatmal below Exhibit -19 in Special Case
No.62/2024, rejecting the bail application of the Appellant.
2. The aforesaid Sessions Case arise out of the
Crime No.0185/2024 registered with Lohara Police Station,
District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections
302, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, 'IPC') and for the offence punishable under
Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act.
3. It is the prosecution's case that, there was
dispute between the accused No.1- Dixit Vijay Hiranwade
and the family of deceased Jay Vijay Patil. On 30.04.2024, in
the afternoon, when the deceased and witness Vaibhav
Kamble were returning home on the motorcycle, the
2 27.apeal.414.25.odt
Appellant and the co-accused Dixit Hiranwade assaulted the
deceased with knife and iron rod. The deceased succumbed
to the injuries. The incident was reported to the police.
During investigation, the statement of the eye witness came
to be recorded. After completion of the investigation, the
charge-sheet came to be filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Appellant that, the death was due to stab injuries caused by
the co-accused - Dixit Hiranwade. Though the role of assault
by the iron rod on the head of the deceased is attributed to
the Appellant, the postmortem report does not show any
injury on the head of the deceased. The cause of death was
due to stab injury. The Appellant is behind bars for almost
two (2) years and the charge was not yet framed and the
Sessions Case was at the stage of production. He submitted
that, the Appellant be granted bail on merits as well as on
the point of delay in trial.
5. It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that, column
No.23 of the postmortem report shows that, the injuries
mention in column No.21 with corresponding injuries
mention in column No.17, were sufficient in ordinary course
of nature to cause death. He does not dispute that, the
charge was not framed. He submitted that, the Appeal be
dismissed.
6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2 that, the accused No.1- Dixit threatened
the witnesses with dire consequences. The family of the
deceased was under threat and, therefore, the Appeal be
dismissed.
3 27.apeal.414.25.odt
7. With the assistance of both the sides, perused
the papers on record. The prosecution's case is based on the
eye witness account. The eye witness attributed the role of
assault to the Appellant on the deceased by the iron rod on
the head of the deceased. The role of stab injuries by the
knife is attributed to the co-accused - Dixit. The postmortem
report shows the cause of death as death due to stab injuries.
The column No.19 of the postmortem report in respect of
head shows no fracture and the skull intact. The learned
Sessions Court in the impugned order has observed that,
there is no medical evidence as to how much the head
injuries were serious. The Appellant is behind bars since
01.05.2024. Considering the role attributed to the Appellant
and the above observations, the Appellant can be enlarged
on bail by imposing appropriate conditions. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
i] The Appeal is allowed.
ii] The impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Yavatmal below Exhibit -19 in Special Case
No.62/2024 is quashed and set aside.
iii] The Appellant shall be released on bail in
connection with Crime No.0185/2024
registered with Lohara Police Station, District
Yavatmal for the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and for the offence
4 27.apeal.414.25.odt
punishable under Sections 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on
executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one (1)
solvent surety in the like amount.
iv] The Appellant shall co-operate with the learned
Trial Court.
v] The Appellant shall not tamper with the
prosecutions evidence in any manner.
vi] The Appellant shall not enter the territorial
jurisdiction of Yavatmal City, except for
attending trial, until further orders.
The Criminal Appeal is disposed of.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/04/2026 18:19:14
