Ranjeet Meghnath Shelke and Another vs the State of Maharashtra

The applicants have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2025, registered at Police Station, Kallam, Dist. Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 75, 119-1, 118-2, 118-1, 189-2, 189-4, 191-2, 191-3, 190, 1152, 352, 351-2 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶21

This Court vide order dated 4.2.2026 had granted ad-interim relief in favour of the applicants on the condition that the applicant shall attend the police station and cooperate with the investigation. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that accordingly, the

¶22

{2}

¶23

ABA 195.26 w 199.26

¶24

applicants have attended the police station and cooperated with the investigation. The present FIR is a fallout of the earlier FIR filed at the behest of one Abhijeet Shelke dated 15.12.2025 being FIR No. 467 of 2025 registered against complainant Uma and her family members, wherein, they are alleged to have assaulted the complainant Abhijeet. The learned counsel for applicant further submits that there are long standing disputes over a right of way leading to the fields of the applicant and complainant which are adjacent to each other. The applicant Sarubai is aged 65 years, who is deliberately implicated in the present crime to rope in the entire family members of the applicants. The applicant Nagnath is 75 years of age who is deliberately roped in the present crime without there being any allegations. Even if the allegations are taken to be true, he is alleged to have assaulted by means of sugarcane. The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that in so far as the allegations against the applicants Ranjit and Sushil are concerned, the complainant Uma and her husband had received only simple injuries, for which the custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be necessary. The incident had occurred at the spur of moment due to the ongoing disputes over the right of way and without there being any grievous injury to the complainant and her husband The applicants have complied with the conditions imposed by this Court and are ready to abide by further conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the applicants may be released on anticipatory bail by confirming the order dated 4.2.2026.

¶25

As against this, the learned APP vehemently opposes the present applications on the ground that the offences are serious in nature, wherein, the applicants are alleged to have caused grievous hurt by means of dangerous weapons. The offences are punishable with imprisonment for ten years. The applicants and the complainant are having longstanding disputes and there is every likelihood that if the

¶26

{3}

¶27

ABA 195.26 w 199.26

¶28

applicants are released on anticipatory bail they may indulge in similar offences. There are medical certificates to corroborate the allegations made by the complainant. The complainant Uma and her husband Prabhakar have received several injuries which corroborate the allegations made by the complainant. Thus, there is ample evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to bring home the guilt of the applicants in the said crime. As such, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applications may therefore be rejected.

¶29

I have gone through the investigation papers made available by the learned APP Mr. Patil. The perusal of the investigation papers would show that the applicants have attended the police station and have cooperated with the investigation. They have also complied with the condition of not to enter the village Shelka Dhanora. There is no violation of the conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer. The medical certificates of complainant Uma and her husband Prabhakar show that they have received simple injuries. The applicant Sarubai is aged 65 years and applicant Nagnath is aged 75 years. So far as the allegations against the applicants Ranjit and Sushil are concerned, the complainant Uma and her husband had received only simple injuries, for which the custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be necessary. The apprehensions of the learned APP can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions.

¶30

Hence, the following order :-

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

[a] The application is allowed.

¶33

[b] The interim order dated 4.2.2026 is hereby confirmed.

¶34

[c] The applicants Ranjeet and Sushil shall not enter the village Shelkar Dharnora, Taluka Kallam, Dist. Dharashiv, till the framing

¶35

{4}

¶36

ABA 195.26 w 199.26

¶37

of charge by the trial court.

¶38

[e] The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶39

[f] The applicants shall submit their Aadhar and Pan card to the Investigating Officer alongwith mobile numbers and addresses of two of their near relatives and their present addresses.

¶40

[g] The applications stand disposed of.

¶41

[MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE.

¶42

grt/-

Ranjeet Meghnath Shelke and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Meghnath Shelke and Another 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

Balaji Ashokrao Gangne vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Dilip Randhe vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Tulshiram Naroji Kautekar ( as Per Fir Baban Naroji Kakde) vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ramrao Hullappa Naik and Ors. vs Laxmibai Balaji Lavte and Ors.

Amol Dattu Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Tanaji Nanasaheb Tele vs the State of Maharashtra and Another