Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Rameshwar Khande vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Rameshwar Khande vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1916/2024 and 37/2025 allowed; interim orders dated 28.10.2024 (ABA No. 1916/2024) and 13.01.2025 (ABA No. 37/2025) confirmed with the additional condition that Ganesh Khande, Namdeo Khande and Gorakh Shinde shall not enter the jurisdiction of Beed Rural Police Station, District Beed, till framing of the charge; Application for Cancellation of Bail No. 33 of 2025 rejected; applications disposed of accordingly; observations in the order are prima facie and shall not influence the Trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted/confirmed to Ganesh Haribhau Khande, Namdeo Haribhau Khande (ABA No. 1916/2024) and Gorakh @ Pappu @ Gorakhnath Ramprasad Shinde (ABA No. 37/2025) in Crime No. 0120/2024, given that they are alleged only of conspiracy, were allegedly not present on the spot, and interim protection already secured their co-operation with the investigation culminating in the charge sheet. +1 more

Court's answer

The applicants Ganesh Khande, Namdeo Khande and Gorakh Shinde were not even present on the spot of the incident and are only alleged of conspiracy in the crime; the interim protection resulted in their co-operation with the investigation and in filing of the charge sheet even against all applicants in both applications; accordingly, the Court was inclined to allow/confirm their anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

On the cancellation application: the interim order barring entry into village Mhalas Javala was passed on 28.10.2024 and did not stipulate that it would operate till conclusion of the trial; the alleged violation is already before the police authorities and it is for them to take appropriate action; Ganesh and Namdeo Khande have no antecedents and no role beyond conspiracy is brought on record; such violation of the interim-order conditions is to be met by imposing further stringent conditions while confirming anticipatory bail, not by cancellation.

Key takeaways

In their reply to the cancellation application the applicants explained that they were required to enter the village only to attend a funeral and for casting votes in the elections, which the Court took into account in rejecting the cancellation application.ratio¶43
Operative disposition: the interim order dated 28.10.2024 in ABA No. 1916/2024 and the interim order dated 13.01.2025 in ABA No. 37/2025 are confirmed, subject to the further condition that the applicants (Ganesh Khande and Namdeo Khande; and Gorakh Shinde respectively) shall not enter the jurisdiction of Beed Rural Police Station, District Beed, till framing of the charge; violation of any condition shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Mehroz K. Pathan, J., 24.02.2026 — Allowed Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1916/2024 (Ganesh Haribhau Khande and Namdeo Haribhau Khande) and 37/2025 (Gorakh @ Pappu @ Gorakhnath Ramprasad Shinde) and rejected the complainant's Application for Cancellation of Bail No. 33 of 2025 arising out of Crime No. 0120/2024 (Police Station Beed [Rural], Dist. Beed) for offences punishable under IPC Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506. The three applicants were not alleged to be present on the spot and were charged only with conspiracy; interim protection (orders dated 28.10.2024 and 13.01.2025) had secured their co-operation with the investigation and the charge sheet had been filed against all applicants. Alleged violations of the interim condition barring entry into village Mhalas Javala were held to be matters for police action (a non-cognizable report already filed); the applicants' entries were explained as attendance at a funeral and election voting, and no antecedents or role beyond conspiracy were placed on record. The interim orders were confirmed subject to a further stringent condition — no entry into the jurisdiction of Beed Rural Police Station till framing of charge — breach of which entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation. Observations made are prima facie only and shall not influence the Trial Court.