Nandlal Kailaschand Vasava (Vasave) vs the State of Maharashtra

The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.261/2025 registered with Upnagar Police Station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and under Sections 37(1)(c) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Sections 61(2), 223, 109, 324(3), 324(4), 132, 121(1), 189(2), 189(3), 189(4), 189(5), 189(9), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶15

2 5(v).ABA-36-2026.doc

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the Informant namely Vantu Bhikarya Gavit, Police Sub-Inspector Police Station has lodged the complaint with the Sub-Urban Police Station, Nandurbar alleging therein that, one Suryakant Marathe committed murder by knife of Jayesh Raju Bhil (Valvi) in front of Vijay Collection Readymade Cloth Shop in Nandurbar City. The offence came to be registered against him. In the backdrop of murderous assault on Jay Valvi, the Procession/silent Morcha was organized by people of Adivasi community on 24.09.2025 at 13.30 Hrs in Nandurbar City. The protesters became violent, pelted stones and damaged the private and public vehicles. Accordingly, the Police on bandobast/ law and order were required to be on toes. The agitators vandalized the public property at the Collector Office, S.P. Office, the Deputy R.T.O. Office as well as Navapur sqaure. The Informant was informed that the mob is drawing closer within the precincts of Upnagar Police Station. At 15.45 Hrs the Police Officers on duty noticed large crowd having gathered near Mandakini and Sai Palace Hotel. Immediately they proceeded to the spot and did notice one person was instigating the mob to burn the hotel and to jeopardize the life of police personnel. To quell the unruly crowd the tear gas/shell was used and the crowd was required to refrain from committing disturbance but no heed was paid

¶17

3 5(v).ABA-36-2026.doc

¶18

and in turn committed the violence with the weapons.

¶19

. Accordingly the aforesaid F.I.R. bearing Crime No.261/2025 dated 25.09.2025 came to be registered with the Sub-Urban Police Station, Nandurbar against in all total 77 persons including the present Applicant.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been wrongly roped into the present crime and that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence connecting him to the said offence. The Applicant’s name has been involved in the present crime only at the behest of the political masters of the police authorities. It is merely by way of a pick and choose policy that the Applicant has been implicated. The Applicant resides in the State of Gujarat and has no connection with the present crime. In fact, on the date of the alleged occurrence of the offence, the Applicant was not even in Nandurbar City, and there is no evidence to show that he was present there.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the Applicant further submits that the allegations against the Applicant, as can be gathered from the impugned order, rest solely on the statement of a witness who is a police constable. This statement names the present Applicant as one of the protesters shouting slogans and

¶22

4 5(v).ABA-36-2026.doc

¶23

instigating others to seek justice for the killing of Jay Valvi, allegedly killed by a person from another community. Apart from the aforesaid statement, which the Applicant contends has been deliberately recorded by the police authorities to implicate members of the community in the present crime, there is no other evidence to show the role of the Applicant. The Applicant is not having criminal antecedents and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶24

As against this, the learned Government Pleader strongly opposes the present application on the ground that initially the violence took place at the office of the Collector, and thereafter the mob proceeded to Mandakini and Sai Palace Hotel, where they became violent, damaged vehicles, and pelted stones indiscriminately. There is sufficient material to show that the Applicant was instigating the protesters not only to raise slogans but also to create a chaotic situation which ultimately led the mob to lose control, assault policemen, and damage vehicles present at the spot. The statement of Khushal Mali indicates that the Applicant was participating in the procession and played an important role in furthering the common object of the unlawful assembly to commit the offences of rioting, attempt to commit murder, causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons,

¶25

5 5(v).ABA-36-2026.doc

¶26

and damaging public property. The photographs show that 14 vehicles were damaged by the mob, and that 40 policemen along with 15 civilians were injured in the incident. The offence is serious in nature. The custodial interrogation of the Applicant is therefore necessary, and the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶27

I have gone through the investigation papers made available by the learned Government Pleader. The perusal of the investigation papers indicates that the Applicant is alleged to have been present in the mob and shouting slogans in protest against the killing of Jay Valvi, a member of the community, by a person from another community. The statement of Khushal Mali, relied upon by the prosecution, merely asserts that the Applicant was one among several protesters and organizers present in the procession taken out to protest the murder of Jay Valvi.

¶28

. The perusal of the investigation papers does not disclose any specific role of the present Applicant in the said crime. The Applicant submits that he was not even present in Nandurbar City. The subsequent incident of causing damage to vehicles at Mandakini and Sai Palace Hotel is not attributed to the Applicant by any of the witnesses, namely Gopal Choudhari,

¶29

6 5(v).ABA-36-2026.doc

¶30

Khushal Mali, and Akash Pawar. The Applicant’s role is restricted only to raising slogans and instigating other protesters to raise such slogans. The apprehension of the learned Government Pleader can be taken care of by directing the Applicant to attend the police station and cooperate with the investigation. Hence, I am inclined to protect the Applicant by exercising the discretionary powers under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023. Hence, the following order :

¶31

ORDER

¶32

( i ) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Nandlal Kailaschand Vasava (Vasave) in connection with Crime No.261/2025 registered with Upnagar Police Station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and under Sections 37(1)(c) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Sections 61(2), 223, 109, 324(3), 324(4), 132, 121(1), 189(2), 189(3), 189(4), 189(5), 189(9), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount, on the following conditions :

¶33

( a ) The Applicant shall attend the Upnagar Police Station,

¶34

7 5(v).ABA-36-2026.doc

¶35

District Nandurbar on 18^th , 20^th , 23^rd , 24^th of February, 2026 and 2^nd and 3^rd of March, 2026 between 11:00 am. to 01:00 pm. and thereafter as when called by the Investigating Officer, till the filing of the charge-sheet.

¶36

( b ) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not influence the witnesses.

¶37

( c ) The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar and PAN Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of himself and two of the near relatives.

¶38

( d ) A single violation of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.

¶39

( ii ) The application is allowed in the above terms and stands disposed of.

¶40

MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE

¶41

Najeeb..

Nandlal Kailaschand Vasava (Vasave) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandlal Kailaschand Vasava (Vasave) 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

Shamuwel Yamaji Dalvi vs Avinash Subhash Dalvi

Sanjay Alias Sunijoy Vishwanath Mule vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jakir Salim Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Navnath Bhausaheb Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra

Bilal Qasim Pyarewale vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dattu Shridhar Dalvi And Others vs Sayyed Hamid Sayyed Mehboob and Others