Allowed¶24

Pradip Prakash Wagh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jun 2026ABA/1174/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest bail confirmed: Pradip Prakash Wagh v. The State of Maharashtra, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1174 of 2025, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, R. M. Joshi, J., decided 08-06-2026; Crime No. 401/2024, Rahata Police Station, Ahmednagar; attempt-to-murder (S. 307 IPC) and Arms Act (S. 3/25) charges arising from incident of 23.03.2024; no specific weapon or injury allegation against applicant, omnibus allegations against accused Nos. 3 to 5; steel-rod grievous injuries attributed to accused Nos. 1 and 2 already on bail; no prior crime, no misuse of liberty; interim relief of 14.07.2025 confirmed except Clause (iv).

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; interim relief confirmed except Clause No. (iv) of the order dated 14.07.2025. ¶24

Pradip Prakash Wagh vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed; interim relief confirmed except Clause No. (iv) of the order dated 14.07.2025.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim pre-arrest bail relief granted on 14.07.2025 to the applicant in Crime No. 401/2024 should be confirmed, in view of the contention that no specific allegation of causing injury or using a weapon is made against him.

¶16

Court's answer

In the First Information Report there is no specific allegation about the nature of weapon carried out by the applicant or the assault caused on the informant, and the allegations against accused Nos. 3 to 5 are omnibus.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The grievous injuries with a steel rod recorded in the injury certificate were not attributed to the present applicant; the allegation of using the steel rod was against accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are already enlarged on bail, and therefore the injuries are not attributable to the applicant.

¶21

Key takeaways

There is no material placed before the Court showing any previous crime registered against the applicant; the Court finds it a fit case to confirm the interim relief.ratio¶21
Interim relief was granted on 14.07.2025 and there is no material on record showing that the applicant misused that liberty.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail application allowed — interim pre-arrest bail of applicant Pradip Prakash Wagh in Crime No. 401/2024 (Rahata Police Station, District Ahmednagar; Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act) confirmed except Clause No. (iv) of the interim order dated 14.07.2025. The FIR contained no specific allegation about the nature of weapon carried by the applicant or assault caused by him; allegations against accused Nos. 3 to 5 were omnibus; the grievous steel-rod injuries were attributed to accused Nos. 1 and 2, already enlarged on bail, so the injuries were not attributable to the applicant; no previous crime was shown against him and no misuse of the interim liberty granted on 14.07.2025 was found.

¶1

¶2

aba1174.25.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

28 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1174 OF 2025

¶5

Pradip Prakash Wagh ….Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra …..Respondent

¶8

Mr. A. S. Dhorde, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. G. Joshi, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 8^th JUNE, 2026.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 401/2024, registered with Rahata Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶12

The first informant gave information with regard to the incident occurred on 23.03.2024 at about 7.30 pm, in which, present applicant and co-accused, total 7 in number, caused assault on the injured with an intention to kill him. The allegation against accused Nos. 1 and 2 is that they were holding rod in their hands and the

¶13

¶14

aba1174.25.odt

¶15

other accused persons were having wooden sticks, tommy and other sharp weapons. The allegation is that accused Nos. 1 to 5 caused actual assault on the injured. In the said incident, the injured sustained injuries. Offence was registered against applicant and coaccused for attempting to commit murder of the deceased.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused Nos. 1 to 4 are already enlarged on regular bail and liberty of accused Nos. 6 and 7 is protected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As far as present applicant is concerned, it is his contention that there is no specific allegation against him of causing any injury to the injured and use of weapon for the same. On these amongst the other contentions, he seeks confirmation of the interim relief.

¶17

Learned APP vehemently opposed the application by drawing attention of the Court to the First Information Report as well as statements of the eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident. It is his submission that the injuries were caused to the injured and considering the same, the provisions of Section 307 of Indian Penal

¶18

¶19

aba1174.25.odt

¶20

Code are rightly invoked against the present applicant and coaccused.

¶21

Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that in the First Information Report, there is no specific allegation about the nature of weapon carried out by the applicant and assault caused on the informant. The said allegations against accused Nos. 3 to 5 are omnibus. Perusal of the investigation papers indicates that here in this case, though the allegation is against five persons of causing assault on the injured with weapons, only three injuries are said to have been caused to him. Injury certificate records causing of grievous injuries with steel rod, which is not attributed against the present applicant. The allegation of using steel rod was against accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are already enlarged on bail. Thus, the injuries are not attributable to the present applicant. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and also in view of the fact that there is no material placed before this Court to show any previous crime being registered against the present applicant, this Court finds it a fit case to confirm the interim relief. Interim relief came to be granted on 14.07.2025 and there is no material on record to show that the applicant has misused the said liberty. Hence, the application

¶22

¶23

aba1174.25.odt

¶24

stands allowed. Interim relief stands confirmed except Clause No. (iv) of the order dated 14.07.2025.

¶25

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶26

dyb

Pradip Prakash Wagh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Prakash Wagh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhavesh Devkumar Vasu vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar Alias Premsagar Ashok Pagare vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Radhesham Nagnath Nanvate vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Aqsa Mohammed Dayanoddin Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prashant Limbraj Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Iifl Capital Ltd. Serviced through Its Authorized Representative Kiran Namdev Lokare vs Pukhraj Hanumandas Rathod and Others