[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rutik Balu Chavan vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 May, 2026
5-ABA-1310-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1310 OF 2026
Shri. Rutik Balu Chavan ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
--------------------
Mr. Shreyas P. Barsawade, for the Applicant (through V.C.).
Mr. Shahaji Shind, 'B' Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State.
Mr. H. D. Nakate, Shirur Police Station, Pune-Rural.
--------------------
CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
DATE : 22 nd MAY, 2026.
(VACATION COURT)
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.
No.235 of 2026 registered with Shirur Police Station, Taluka Shirur,
District Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 189(2),
191(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS), Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections
3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that there was a quarrel between
5-ABA-1310-2026.doc
the Complainant and some persons in connection with a Cricket
Tournament on 17th March 2026. The Complainant received a call
from one Mr. Yogesh Machale stating that they would like to resolve
the quarrel. The Complainant along with his friend went over there. At
that time, Mr. Akshay Patil, Sutradhar Shinde and others including the
Complainant were present. At that time, Mr. Akshay Patil drew a pistol
from his waist and fired. The shot missed the target. Pappu Kad also
fired from his pistol in the direction of the Applicant, however, that
round also missed. Thereafter, the Applicant and others hurled stone at
the Complainant. This in nutshell is the case of the Prosecution.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that it is
some other persons who have fired from the firearms and that the
Applicant has not fired from the firearm. He submits that the
allegation is that the Applicant had hurled stone. He submits that it is
very unlikely that stone could be found in the cricket ground. He
submits that custodial interrogation is not necessary.
5-ABA-1310-2026.doc
4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the Anticipatory Bail Application. He
submits that custodial interrogation is necessary. He submits that prima
facie case is made out against the Applicant in the complaint. He
submits that the allegations are very serious.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
This is a case where there were firing from the side of the Applicant.
Two Co-accused in this group have fired at the Complainant.
However, that shot was missed. At that time, the Applicant also hurled
stones. The intention of the unlawful assembly was very clear. There is
strong case against the Applicant. Hence, this is not a fit case for grant
of Anticipatory Bail Application. Hence, there can be no interim relief.
6. List the matter on 10th June, 2026 for further consideration.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
