Mangesh Madhavrao Ingale vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

ba-242-2026.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

2026:BHC-AUG:10573

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO.242 OF 2026

¶5

Mangesh S/o Madhavrao Ingale, Age: 19 yrs., Occupation: Student, R/o. Rajura (Bk.), Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. ..Applicant (Orig. Accused)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through Mukramabad Police Station, District Nanded. ..Respondent

¶8

Mr. S. S. Palnitkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 12^th MARCH, 2026

¶10

ORDER:-

¶11

The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.214/2025 registered with Mukramabad Police Station, Dist. Nanded for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶12

The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information given by Santosh Vyankatrao Yerge. In nutshell it is stated that son of informant Rahul had some dispute with JCL-1 in college premises. Thereupon JCL-1 had intercepted college bus and attempted to assault Rahul. On 03.12.2025 Rahul went to attend Yatra alongwith his friends. At about 8.00 pm Rahul’s friend namely Rohit told informant that Rahul was beaten by some persons from Rajura. When he reached to spot, he found

¶13

ba-242-2026.odt

¶14

(2)

¶15

that his son was already shifted to Civil Hospital, where he was found him dead. Rahul had suffered severe injury on left shoulder. On further enquiry, friends of Rahul namely Prasad and Shrinivas told that JCL-1 alongwith applicant and others attacked Rahul. JCL-1 inflicted blow of dagger and other accused persons also assaulted him.

¶16

The aforesaid information culminated in registration of offence against in all three accused persons including applicant. The applicant has been arrested on 06.12.2025. He applied for regular bail before Sessions Court at Mukhed. However, his application came to be rejected.

¶17

Mr. Palnitkar, learned Advocate appearing for applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in aforesaid crime. The attribution of causing fatal injuries is against JCL-1. The FIR does not specify role of applicant in commission of offence. The statement of witnesses are inconsistent on point of applicant’s role. The medical evidence is inconsistent with nature of assault alleged against applicant.

¶18

Per contra, Mr. Bhadane, learned APP opposes application for bail. He would submit that applicant is named in FIR. He was present all along with JCL-1. Atleast 8 eye witnesses have confirmed participation of applicant in commission of offence. The

¶19

ba-242-2026.odt

¶20

(3)

¶21

offence is serious. The young victim aged about 17 years has been brutally murdered. The release of applicant may hamper smooth trial. The possibility of tampering evidence cannot be ruled out.

¶22

Having considered submissions advanced, apparently applicant is aged about 19 years. He is student. Perusal of FIR depicts that it has been lodged on the basis of hearsay information. The applicant was allegedly in company of JCL-1 and participated in commission of offence. The applicant and others allegedly assaulted deceased. Apparently, fatal blow is allegedly inflicted by JCL-1.

¶23

The prosecution relies upon statement of eye witnesses. Perusal of statements of Shrinivas Panchal, Prasad Ramdinewar and Shivaji Suryakar states that applicant and other friends of JCL-1 assaulted deceased Rahul by fists and slaps or gave blow on his face by means of iron bracelet (Kada). The other witnesses states that applicant kicked on genital organ of deceased. Perusal of postmortem report, particularly column no.15 shows that there was no injury on external genital. There is major inconsistency in role attributed to applicant in statement of witnesses vis-a-vis medical evidence on record. Although presence of applicant is discernible from averment in FIR and statement of witnesses, his role in commission of offence is based on shaky material. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. No criminal

¶24

ba-242-2026.odt

¶25

(4)

¶26

antecedents of applicant are brought to notice of this Court. Resultantly, case is made out for grant of bail subject to certain conditions. Hence, the following order:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

¶29

(ii) The applicant, Mangesh S/o Madhavrao Ingale be released on bail in Crime No.214/2025 registered with Mukramabad Police Station, Dist. Nanded for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) on following condition:

¶30

a. The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner.

¶31

b. The applicant shall attend each and every effective date before the Trial Court.

¶32

c. The applicant shall not indulge in criminal activity.

¶33

(iii) Application is disposed of.

¶34

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE

¶35

Devendra/March-2026

Mangesh Madhavrao Ingale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Madhavrao Ingale 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

Sanjay Bhagwan Bachakar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jayant Anant Mahajan and Others vs Anant Mahadav Mahajan

Yamuna Ramchandra Jagtap vs Shamrao Dagadu Rathod and Others

Dineshrao Ganeshrao Deshmukh and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shyam Narayan Levde vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prabhakar Vinayakarao Deshmukh and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another