[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pradip @ Anna Ramesh Bhosale And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 May, 2026
30. ABA 1294-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1294 OF 2026
Mr. Pradip @ Anna Ramesh Bhosale & Anr. )... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. )... Respondents
-----
Mr. Prashant S. Hagare for the Applicant.
Ms. Rashmi Tendulkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Anil Y. Bansode for the Complainant-Respondent No.2.
Mr. S.H. Jamdade, Head Constable, Walchandnagar, Pune Gramin.
-----
CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
DATE : 20th MAY 2026
(VACATION COURT)
P.C. :
1) At the outset, learned Counsel for the Applicants seeks leave
to add the complainant as party Respondent No.2. Leave is granted.
Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2) Issue notice to the Respondents. Mr. Rashmi Tendulkar,
learned A.P.P. waives service for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Anil
Bansode, learned Advocate waives service for Respondent No.2.
3) By the present Application, the Applicants are seeking
30. ABA 1294-2026.doc
anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No.0084 of 2026, registered
with Walchandnagar Police Station, Taluka Indapur, Dist. Pune Rural,
for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 324(4), 189(2),
191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
and Section 92(A) & (B) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.
4) The Applicants are original accused nos.1,2, 3 and 9. The
case of the complainant is that the first informant was in a live in
relation with one Pranali Bansode. On 23 rd March 2026, when the
informant and Pranali returned to the residence, the Applicants along
with co-accused accosted Pranali. It is stated that the said accused
snatched the informant's mobile phone, damaged it, and also assaulted
the first informant as well as Pranali with iron rods and wooden sticks.
There were certain onlookers and neighbours, who came for
intervening in the quarrel.
5) Mr. Prashant Hagare, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicants, submits that the Applicants' role is not made out. He
submits that this Court vide Order 13th May 2026 passed in Anticipatory
30. ABA 1294-2026.doc
Bail Application No.1296 of 2026, protected the Applicants therein.
6) Mr. Anil Bansode, the learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2 submits that the role of the Applicants is very
minutely stated in the FIR. He submits that the Applicants have
assaulted the first informant and Pranali with iron pipes, wooden rods
and also used fists and blows. He submits that the first informant is
handicapped person.
7) Mr. Rashmi Tendulkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.1-State, also submits that the custodial interrogation is required.
She produced before a copy of the injured certificate which shows that
there are serious injuries.
8) Perused the FIR, heard learned Counsel for the parties.
9) It is no doubt proved that this Court on 13 th May 2026, have
granted anticipatory bail to certain co-accused in Anticipatory Bail
Application No.1296 of 2026. However, in the same order it was
mentioned that the role of the Applicants therein, who were senior
members, was only to pacify the quarrel which took place.
30. ABA 1294-2026.doc
10) I find that the role of the Applicants herein is totally different
and that their role cannot be equated to that of the Applicants in
Anticipatory Bail Application No.1296 of 2026. There is a specific role
assigned to the Applicants. The FIR mentions serious injuries which
are caused to the Applicants.
11) In this premise, I am not inclined to grant any interim
protection to the Applications. Hence, the Application for interim
protection is rejected.
12) Stand over to 26th June, 2026.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
RAJESH RAJESH VASANT
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.05.22
19:23:43 +0530
