Prabhakar Babruwan Shelke and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The applicants have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 467 of 2025, registered with Kallam Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections 119-1, 118-1, 115-2, 189-2, 189-4, 191-2, 191-3, 190, 352, 351-2 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶16

This court vide order dated 4.2.2026 had granted ad-interim relief in favour of the applicant on the condition that the applicant shall attend the police station and cooperate with the investigation. The applicants are falsely implicated in the present crime. For the same incident dated 14.12.2025, there is a counter FIR registered at the behest of Uma Shelke, who was injured in the incident of assault which is carried out by the family members of complainant herein - Abhijeet. The applicant Uma and Prabhakar had suffered severe injuries in the assault which has taken place. The applicant Seema and Balasaheb were not present at the time of incident and arrived on the spot only after the

¶17

{2}

¶18

935 sr.no...odt

¶19

incident was over. The applicant Bhairu was not present on the spot of incident and was present at a function which was being conducted at Dharashiv at the hands of Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra for handing over the cows for the beneficiaries, which was conducted on 14.12.2025 at 7.00 p.m. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the applicants are falsely implicated in the present crime. The applicant Uma has suffered severe injuries and was required to undergo treatment for two days and as such, there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the counter FIR bearing No. 469 of 2025, wherein, the complainant Abhijeet and all the other members of Shelke family are accused in the said crime.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposes the application on the ground that the applicants are involved in a serious crime of causing grievous hurt by means of dangerous weapons which is punishable with imprisonment for ten years. Taking into consideration the chain of disputes between the applicants and complainant, there is every likelihood that the applicants may indulge into identical offences against each other and thereby cause disturbance to public peace. The applicants, though have attended the police station and cooperated with the investigation, there is every likelihood of more cognizable offences by the applicants and complainant against each other.

¶21

I have gone through the investigation papers made available by the learned APP. Perusal of the investigation papers shows that the applicants have attended the police station and have cooperated with the investigation as directed by this Court vide interim order dated 4.2.2026. Perusal of injury certificate of Abhijeet – complainant herein, shows only simple injuries sustained by him over right wrist, which is not a vital part of the body. The investigation papers in FIR No. 469 of 2025 corroborates the fact that the applicant Uma was injured in the said incident alongwith applicant Prabhakar. Applicant Prabhakar has

¶22

{3}

¶23

935 sr.no...odt

¶24

suffered 5 injuries, whereas, applicant Uma has suffered 3 injuries. Thus, taking into consideration the fact that there are counter cases filed by the applicants and complainant against each other and simple injuries were sustained by the complainant Abhijeet, I am inclined to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS. So far as the apprehension of the learned APP is concerned, the same can be taken care of, by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order :-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

[A] The application is allowed;

¶27

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

¶28

[C] The applicants shall attend the Kallam Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv, and report to the Investigating Officer as and when called by him till filing of charge sheet.

¶29

[D] The conditional order dated 4.2.2026, not to enter the village Shelka Dhanora, Taluka Kallam, Dist. Dharashiv, except with the permission of Superintendent of Police, Dharashiv, only in case of emergency, shall continue till filing of charge sheet.

¶30

[E] The applicant Seema Balasaheb Shelke and Balasaheb Babruwan Shelke are allowed to enter the village Shelka Dhanora, Taluka Kallam, Dist. Dharashiv, on account of engagement ceremony of their daughter, for a period of one week.

¶31

[F] After a period of one week, the said condition of not entering the village Shelka Dhanora by them, shall continue to operate till filing of charge sheet, except in case of emergency, for which they shall seek the permission of the Superintendent of Police, Dharashiv.

¶32

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

¶33

[H] The applicants shall submit their Aadhar and Pan card to the Investigating Officer alongwith mobile numbers and Pan

¶34

{4}

¶35

935 sr.no...odt

¶36

card to the Investigating Officer alongwith mobile numbers and addresses of two of their near relatives and their present addresses. [I] A single violation of the conditions imposed by this Court shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

¶37

[J] The application stands disposed of.

¶38

[MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE.

¶39

grt/-

Prabhakar Babruwan Shelke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar Babruwan Shelke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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