Ishwar @ Barkya S/O Mohansingh Solanke vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Tamgaon Dist. Buldhana

Shri M.P. Ladhe, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms S.Z. Haider, APP for the Non-applicant- State. Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate Assisting Prosecution

¶11

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : APRIL 10, 2026.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The applicant came to be arrested in connection with

¶14

Crime No.292/2025 registered with the Tamgaon Police Station, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 118(1), 333, 351(3), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Charge sheet came to be filed and Sections 61(2), 49, 118(2), 324(6) of the BNS and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, came to

¶15

be added.

¶16

The first information report came to be lodged by

Rgd

Order 100426ba307.26

2

Prajwal Subhash Mohe, alleging that on 28.08.2025 the applicants’ party have assaulted the informant and others on account of an old dispute between them with the help of iron rods, spear and sharp weapon like knife, wherein brother of the informant Rushikesh lost his life.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that this Court vide order dated 26.03.2026 has granted bail to the coaccused in Criminal Application No. 172/2026 who has played a more aggravated role in the assault. The contents of the first information report demonstrates that no role is attributed to the present applicant regarding the assault made to the deceased Rushikesh. The only allegation in the first information report against the applicant is that, he was present on the spot of incident allegedly armed with an iron rod. However, no specific overt act is attributed to the present applicant and allegations are general in nature. He further submits that the applicant himself has been injured in the incident which is corroborated by the injury certificate which shows that he has sustained injury on the right side of back near shoulder. Therefore, applicant prayed to be enlarged on bail considering the role attributed to him, and as the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed.

Rgd

3

Order 100426ba307.26

On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State and learned Counsel assisting the prosecution vehemently opposed the application on the ground that the applicant’s party formed an unlawful assembly with a common object and went to the house of the informant along with weapons and assaulted the informant and other persons. The role of the present applicant cannot be bifurcated from other co-accused persons at this stage in view of the common object.

¶26

The learned Counsel assisting the prosecution has placed a strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shobha Namdev Sonavane .vrs. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and other , (2026 SCC OnLine SC 291), particularly paragraph no.27 which reads as under :

¶27

“ 27. In this backdrop, clearly, the approach adopted by the High Court at the stage of considering bail recording that the prosecution was required to indicate the individual role of the accused in the incident, and that failure to do so, entitled the respondents-accused to bail, is erroneous on the face of record. In a case where the offence is committed by an unlawful assembly, each member of the assembly is equally responsible for the acts committed in furtherance of the unlawful object. The common object of the assembly being to assault the deceased Namdev on account of the pending civil litigation, each

Rgd

4

Order 100426ba307.26

member of the unlawful assembly was thus equally liable and responsible for the offending acts. We may note that the looking to the large number of injuries, caused to the deceased [referred to infra], even the plea of over implication was not tenable.”

¶32

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme

¶33

Court in case of Nitya Nand .vrs. State of U.P. and another (2024) 9 SCC 314, particularly paragraph no.43, which reads as

¶34

under :

¶35

“43. This brings us to the pivotal section which is Section 149 IPC. Section 149 IPC says that every member of an unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of the common object. Section 149 IPC is quite categorical. It says that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of committing of that offence, is a member of said assembly; is guilty of that offence. Thus, if it is a case of murder under Section 302 IPC, each member of the unlawful assembly would be guilty of committing the offence under Section 302 IPC.”

¶36

It was also submitted that the present applicant along

¶37

with others prevented the informant’s party to take Rushikesh to

¶38

the hospital for timely treatment which led to his death.

Rgd

5

Order 100426ba307.26

Therefore, as there is serious allegation of murder and applicant has played an active role in the entire episode, the application of the applicant be rejected.

¶43

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. This Court vide order dated 26.03.2026 has granted bail to the co-accused persons in Criminal Application No.172/2026 i.e. Mangalsingh Solanke and Akash Managalsingh Solanke. The fact remains that the present applicant has played a lesser role in the entire episode. So far as judgments in case of Shobha Namdev Sonavane and Nitya Nand (supra) are concerned, the same are not applicable to the facts of the case, considering the role of the present applicant in the entire episode. One glaring fact in the present case is that it cannot be said that the common object of the assembly was to assault the deceased Rushikesh due to pending litigation, as in fact Rushikesh had joined on the spot of incident at a later point of time. It is possible that the accused persons had only assembled to teach a lesson to the informant’s party. It appears that no specific overt act is attributed to the present applicant in causing the death of Rushikesh. The applicant was arrested on 29.08.2025. Mere presence on the spot of incident armed with an iron rod is not

Rgd

6

Order 100426ba307.26

sufficient to keep the applicant behind bars. Further even the applicant has sustained injuries. Considering the role played by the applicant and as the investigation is complete, charge-sheet is filed and the fact that the co-accused persons have been released on bail by this Court, I am inclined to grant bail on certain terms and conditions. Hence, the following order :

¶48

ORDER.

¶49

(i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of.

¶50

(ii) The applicant /accused Ishwar @ Barkya Mohansingh Solanke be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.292/2025 registered with the Tamgaon Police Station, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 118(1), 333, 351(3), 61(2), 49, 118(2) and 324(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.

¶51

(iii) The accused shall not enter within the territorial jurisdiction of village Niwana, Tq. Sangrampur, District Buldhana till the completion of the trial.

¶52

(iv) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to

Rgd

Order 100426ba307.26

7

any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶57

(v) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency.

¶58

(vi) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fail to attend the trial for one single date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail.

¶59

(vii) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial.

¶60

(viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/04/2026 18:19:14 Rgd

Ishwar @ Barkya S/O Mohansingh Solanke v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Tamgaon Dist. Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar @ Barkya S/O Mohansingh Solanke v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Tamgaon Dist. Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ishu S/O Rakesh Swami vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Wadner, Dist, Wardha

Santosh Atmaram Ghate vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Loni Takali, Tq Nandgaon Khandeshwar Dist. Amravati

Pruthwi @ Golu Devidas Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Lohara Tq Yavatmal Dist Yavatmal

Jagdishprasad Chandalal Jaiswal vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur

Amol S/O Jeevan Hiware and Others. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Shivaji Nagar, Khamgaon, Tq Khamgaon Dist Buldhana

Bharat S/O. Govindrao Narnawre vs Vaishali Bharat Narnawre (D/O Bhojraj Sherkar)