Prajjwal Prakash Sonkamble vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The applicant has approached this court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with crime No.51 of 2026, registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 118-1, 351-3, 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act.

¶15

Mr. D.M. Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely roped in the present crime. There is a delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR. The FIR No. 42 of 2026 was lodged at the behest of the grandmother of the applicant on 23.1.2026 i.e. the date of the incident itself. However, the present FIR No. 51 of 2025 is registered at the behest of the complainant on 30.1.2026 i.e. about 7 days after the date of incident. Though there is unexplained delay in registering the FIR. The police authorities have issued notice to the complainant in FIR No. 42 of 2026 under Section 35 of the BNS and a charge sheet is filed in the said crime. The grandmother of the applicant was seriously injured in the said crime. There are allegations of the complainant using sword to assault the grandmother of the applicant. The present FIR is a fallout of the earlier FIR filed by the grandmother of

¶16

{2}

¶17

977 sr.no...odt

¶18

the applicant. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedents and is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. As such, the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶19

As against this, the learned APP vehemently oppose the application on the ground that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of a dangerous weapon. There are allegations of the applicant using sword to assault the complainant. The complainant has received injuries though simple in nature, however, the injuries are corroborating allegations made in the FIR. There are two incised wound sustained by the complainant Ajay Hanwate. The applicant is resident of the same area where the complainant is residing. There is every likelihood that the applicant, if released on bail, may again indulge into similar offence and thereby cause disturbance of law and order in the vicinity. The application may therefore be rejected.

¶20

I have gone through the investigation papers made available by the learned APP. There are allegations of complainant assaulting the grandmother of the applicant, which has resulted into lodging FIR No. 42 of 2026 on the date of incident dated 23.1.2026. There is a delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR in the present crime which is registered on 30.1.2026. The injury certificate of the applicant’s grandmother also corroborate the allegations about the assault. There are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. The applicant is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Since there is considerable delay in lodging the FIR, the false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out at this stage. However, these observations are prima facie in nature and are made only for the purpose of deciding the present application. The same nay not influence the trial court. As such, I am inclined to protect the applicant. Hence, the following order :-

{3}

977 sr.no...odt

O R D E R

[I] In the event of arrest of the applicant, in connection with Crime No. 51 of 2026, registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 118-1, 351-3, 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act. the applicant Prajjwal Prakash Sonkamble, be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- , with one or more sureties in the like amount, on the following conditions :-

¶25

[i] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station and report to the Investigating Officer on 28^th , 29^th April, 2026, 4^th and 5^th May, 2026 between 2.00 p.m. to 5. 00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶26

[ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶27

[iii] The applicant shall not enter the vicinity of Prakash Nagar, Taroda (Bk.), Nanded till filing of charge sheet.

¶28

[iv] A single violation of the conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

¶29

[v] The applicant shall submit his Aadhar card and Pan card to the Investigating Officer alongwith mobile numbers and addresses of two of his near relatives and his present address.

¶30

[vi] The application stands disposed of.

¶31

[MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE.

¶32

grt/-

Prajjwal Prakash Sonkamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajjwal Prakash Sonkamble 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

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

Anil Bapurao Mehetre vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Baban Rama Walekar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Niraj Suresh Gahire vs Sakubai Machindra Gangule and Ors.

Vithal Manikrao Jogdand vs Anil Ramchandra Rudrawar

Baburao Vishwanath Karale Died through Lrs Bayanabai Baburao Karale and Others vs Shridhar Bhau Karale and Others