[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gokul Harinarayan Budalkar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Mana, ... on 16 February, 2026
1 18 BA 1032.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1032/2025
(Gokul Harinarayan Budalkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. A. R. Chutke, Advocate for applicant.
CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATED : 16/02/2026.
Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in
connection with Crime No. 250/2024 registered with the
Police Station Mana, Tal. Murtizapur, Dist. Akola for the
offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 118(1),
326(f), 352, 115(2), 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS").
3. The brief facts of the prosecution story is that on
16.09.2024, the informant heard anguished voice from the
applicant's residence, he went to see who is fighting in the
house. When the informant and his wife intervened to save
the deceased (who is applicant's father), they were beaten
with fist and blows, so also abusive language was used
against them. It is further alleged that at that time, the
2 18 BA 1032.25
applicant threw bricks towards the informant and his wife
and injured them. Based on the aforesaid information,
First Information Report ("FIR") came to be lodged against
the applicant.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
submits that the neighbor of the present applicant has
registered the offence alleging that on 16.09.2024, the
applicant assaulted his father with the help of a stick. He
has also alleged that the applicant has assaulted the
informant and his wife with the help of a brick on the
count that they interfered in the quarrel between the father
and son. It appears from the record that the deceased was
admitted in the hospital on 16.09.2024 till 20.09.2024,
again he was admitted on 23.09.2024 and he was
discharged on 29.09.2024. The applicant was arrested on
21.09.2024. However, initially the report was registered
under Sections 118 (1), 326 (f), 352, 115(2), 351(2) of
the BNS, later on it appears that as the father died on
17.11.2024, accordingly 103(1) of the BNS was added.
5. On Perusal of the entire charge-sheet, admittedly
it appears that the statement of the deceased was not
3 18 BA 1032.25
recorded in spite of the fact that he was discharged on
29.09.2024. The learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that there is no allegation that after
discharge, the applicant has again assaulted deceased-
father. Investigation shows that the informant who is the
neighbor of the applicant has registered the FIR and he has
only stated that there was quarrel between the applicant
and his father. However, as the informant has intervened
in their quarrel, he was given blow with the help of brick
on the head by the applicant. Perusal of the injury
certificate of the informant shows that near about five
injuries are on person. All these injuries are shown to be
simple. Even on the person of the wife of the informant,
there is one injury that too is simple in nature. Upon
Perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased, it
appears that he died due to head injury and therefore he
submits that considering the fact that the deceased was
discharged from the hospital on 29.09.2024 and he died on
17.11.2024 when the applicant was in the jail, no offence
of murder is attributable to the applicant.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently
opposes the application and invited my attention to the
4 18 BA 1032.25
statements of the eye witnesses, where they have
specifically stated that the applicant has assaulted his
father with the help of stick. The postmortem report
shows that the cause of death is head injury. He submits
that considering the seriousness of the offence and the fact
that that there are eye witnesses, the applicant does not
deserve the bail, therefore requested to reject the
application.
7. I have considered the rival submissions.
Admittedly, the first informant is the neighbor who has
intervened in the quarrel between father and the present
applicant (son). It further appears that due to intervention
of informant, the applicant has assaulted the informant
and his wife with the help of brick on his head.
Admittedly, the incident took place on 16.09.2024. So far
as the informant and his wife's injury certificates are
concerned, all injuries are simple in nature. It is an
admitted position that the deceased who is the father of
the applicant was admitted in the hospital on 21.09.2024
and he was discharged on 29.09.2024. Admittedly, the
father died on 17.11.2024. Considering this fact that after
the discharge from the hospital, the father died after two
5 18 BA 1032.25
months, however even after discharge, no statement of the
father was recorded by the Investigating Agency. As could
be gathered from the record that the applicant was
arrested on 21.09.2024 and the father was discharged on
29.09.2024. Under such circumstances, prima facie it
appears that when the applicant was in Jail, the father died
two months after the incident that too at his own house.
The deceased died by the same injury which was inflicted
by the applicant or not is not clear. Considering this fact
and the fact that the applicant is in Jail since 21.09.2024,
investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, I am
inclined to grant bail. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant/accused Gokul Harinarayan
Budalkar be released on bail in connection with Crime No.
250/2024 registered with the Police Station Mana, Tal.
Murtizapur, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under
Sections 103(1), 109, 118(1), 326(f), 352, 115(2), 351(2)
of the BNS on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with
one surety in the like amount.
(iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not
6 18 BA 1032.25
tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The accused shall provide his residential address
and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not
change his place of residence without prior intimation to
the concerned Investigating Officer.
(v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every
date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two
consecutive dates or fails to comply with the aforesaid
conditions, his default would entails the State to ask for
cancellation of bail.
(vi) The applicant/accuseed should not reside within
the vicinity of village Khaparwada, Tal. Murtizapur, Dist.
Akola.
6. The observation of this Court are prima facie in
nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial
Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observation.
( M. M. NERLIKAR, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/02/2026 18:10:52
