Yogesh Suresh Mule vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2026)

Yogesh Suresh Mule vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection granted under Section 482 BNSS: upon arrest in connection with Crime No. 806 of 2025 (M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Ahilyanagar), the Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions - attendance at M.I.D.C. Police Station on 23rd, 24th, 30th, 31st March 2026 and 6th, 7th April 2026 between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. and thereafter as called by the Investigating Officer till filing of charge-sheet; barred from entering village Pimpalgaon Ujjaini, Taluka Nagar, District Ahilyanagar till filing of charge-sheet; not to tamper with evidence or threaten the complainant or witnesses; attendance at trial on each and every date unless exempted on emergency conditions; submission of Aadhar and PAN cards and detailed addresses and phone numbers of himself and two near relatives; any single violation to entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the Applicant (Yogesh Suresh Mule) in connection with FIR/Crime No. 806 of 2025 registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Court's answer

Perusal of the investigation papers/injury certificate shows the complainant, Shankar Mule, sustained only a simple injury in the form of a contused lacerated wound.

Ratio / Principle

The other injuries sustained by Nilesh Mule are shown to be grievous in nature.

Key takeaways

The FIR attributes the assaults on the witnesses to accused Nilesh and not to the present Applicant/Yogesh.ratio¶21
Since the dispute arose out of use of a common well from which both the Applicant's and the complainant's families drew water, the possibility of false implication of the Applicant cannot be ruled out.ratio¶23
The foregoing observations are made only for the purpose of deciding this application and shall not influence the trial Court.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted - YOGESH SURESH MULE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 66 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bench at Aurangabad), Mehroz K. Pathan, J., 16 March 2026. Applicant sought interim protection under Section 482 BNSS for FIR No. 806 of 2025 dated 25.10.2025 (M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Ahilyanagar), offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from a dispute over drawing water from a well constructed by complainant Shankar. On perusal of the investigation papers, the Court found the complainant had sustained only a simple injury (contused lacerated wound) although witness Nilesh Mule's injuries were grievous, and that the FIR credited the assaults on witnesses to accused Nilesh rather than the Applicant; the Applicant himself had been hospitalised (Neuron Plus Hospital, then Saideep Hospital) following the counter-FIR No. 805/2025 of 22.10.2025 in which complainant Shankar is an accused, so the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. Interim protection granted: release on arrest on a P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, conditioned on periodic police-station attendance till filing of the charge-sheet, exclusion from village Pimpalgaon Ujjaini (Taluka Nagar, District Ahilyanagar) till charge-sheet, no tampering with or threatening of evidence/complainant/witnesses, trial attendance, Aadhar/PAN disclosure, and liability for cancellation on any violation. The Court expressly confined its observations to this application, directing they shall not influence the trial Court.

2026:BHC-AUG:11694

1 15.ABA-66-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2026

YOGESH SURESH MULE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Advocate for Applicant : Mrs. Sonawane Sunita G. Addl.PP for Respondents/State : Mr. A. S. Shinde

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 16^th MARCH 2026

PER COURT :

Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent/State.

The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail application in connection with FIR No. 806 of 2025 dated 25.10.2025 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the FIR, is that the dispute arose over drawing water from the well constructed by the complainant. The complainant had obstructed the accused persons from taking water. It is alleged that the Applicant abused and

2 15.ABA-66-2026.doc

assaulted the informant with a sharp weapon, causing injury to the informant’s left hand. When the informant’s son came to his rescue, accused Nilesh assaulted him with an iron pahar on his right hand. Accused No. 1, Suresh, further threatened to kill the informant, stating that if they were not allowed to take water, they would kill him.

The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the present FIR, being Crime No. 806/2025, is a fallout of the earlier FIR filed by the brother of the Applicant, namely Nilesh Mule, being FIR No. 805/2025, registered for the same incident dated 22.10.2025. The complainant Shankar, is also an accused in FIR No. 805/2025. The Applicant was required to undergo treatment for the injuries sustained in the said incident, initially at Neuron Plus Hospital from 22.10.2025 to 26.10.2025, and was thereafter shifted to another multispecialty hospital, namely Saideep Hospital, where he remained admitted from 27.10.2025 to 02.11.2025 for injuries sustained to his right fronto-temporo-parietal region. The allegations against the Applicant, even if taken to be true, pertain only to an assault on a non-vital part, namely the hand of the complainant. The said injury could be a result of the scuffle that took place, in which the Applicant himself was injured and required medical treatment for a longer period. The dispute arose out of the use of a common water well, the water from which was being shared by the Applicant’s family as well as the complainant’s family. The Applicant is not having any criminal antecedents and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be

3 15.ABA-66-2026.doc

imposed by this Court.

As against this, the learned APP strongly opposes the application on the ground that the Applicant was involved in a serious offence of causing grievous hurt by means of a dangerous weapon, which is punishable with life imprisonment. The injury sustained by the complainant, Shankar, is a contused lacerated wound. Another witness, Nilesh Mule, the son of the complainant, suffered a serious injury in the form of a fracture to his hand. The Applicant is alleged to have shared the common intention along with the other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that if the Applicant is released, he may again indulge in identical offences of threatening the complainant and may create law and order problems. The custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary to complete the investigation. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, and the same may be rejected.

I have gone through the investigation papers made available by the learned APP. A perusal of the injury certificate of the complainant, Shankar Mule, shows that he has sustained only a simple injury in the form of a contused lacerated wound. The other injuries sustained by Nilesh Mule are shown to be grievous in nature. However, the FIR records that witnesses were assaulted by accused Nilesh and not by the present Applicant/Yogesh. A perusal of the medical papers further shows that the Applicant/Yogesh, was required to undergo treatment for his injuries, initially at Neuron

4 15.ABA-66-2026.doc

Plus Hospital and thereafter at Saideep Hospital, for a longer period. Considering that the dispute arose out of the use of a common well, from which both the families of the Applicant and the complainant were drawing water, the possibility of false implication of the Applicant cannot be ruled out. These observations, however, are made only for the purpose of deciding the present application and shall not influence the trial Court. Taking into consideration the fact that the Applicant himself was required to undergo treatment at various hospitals, I am inclined to grant interim protection to the Applicant in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the BNSS. Hence the following order :

ORDER

( i ) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Yogesh Suresh Mule in connection with Crime No. 806 of 2025 dated 25.10.2025 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands) with two solvent sureties in the like amount, on the following conditions :

( ii ) The Applicant is directed to attend M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Ahilyanagar on 23^rd , 24^th , 30^th and 31^st March of 2026 and 6^th and 7^th April of 2026 between 11:00 am. to 01:00 pm. and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing of the charge-sheet.

( iii ) The Applicant shall not enter the village Pimpalgaon Ujjaini, Taluka Nagar, District Ahilyanagar till filing of the charge-sheet.

5 15.ABA-66-2026.doc

( iv ) The Applicant is directed not to tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten the complainant or the witnesses.

( v ) The Applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless so exempted by the trial on emergency conditions.

( vi ) 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.

( vii ) A single violation of the aforesaid conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail of the Applicant on that ground.

( viii ) With the aforesaid directions, the application is disposed of.

MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE

NAJEEB..