Avinash Samhaji Nalawade vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Avinash Samhaji Nalawade vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted: applicant to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 925 of 2024 (Wakad Police Station, District Pune) on a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions that he (a) does not enter the jurisdiction of Wakad Police Station till recording of evidence of the first informant, (b) attends the concerned police station as and when required, and (c) does not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in Crime No. 925 of 2024 (Wakad Police Station, District Pune), registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Indian Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. +2 more

Court's answer

The applicant is to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 925 of 2024 registered with Wakad Police Station, District Pune, on executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Ratio / Principle

Bail was warranted because the applicant has been in custody for more than one year and six months, the investigation is complete, charge has not been framed, and it may take time to conclude the trial.

Key takeaways

The first informant's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement attributes the assault to the co-accused and not to the applicant; evidence is required to prove the case against the applicant, which supported the grant of bail.ratio¶19
Bail conditions imposed: the applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Wakad Police Station till recording of evidence of the first informant; shall attend the concerned police station as and when required; and shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Shivkumar Dige, J., 27 March 2026 — Bail Application No. 353 of 2026, Avinash Samhaji Nalawade v. The State of Maharashtra and anr.: Regular bail granted in Crime No. 925 of 2024, Wakad Police Station, District Pune, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 of 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4(25) of the Indian Arms Act, Sections 37(1), 37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. Prosecution case: on 23rd August 2024 the applicant and a co-accused assaulted the first informant and his friend with a sickle with intention to kill, over an old dispute; the informant sustained serious injuries; six antecedents were cited against the applicant and MCOCA provisions were said to apply, with the co-accused's Section 18 statement mentioning the applicant's role. Bail granted because the applicant had been in custody for over one year and six months, the investigation was complete but charge had not been framed and the trial would take time, and the first informant's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement attributed the assault to the co-accused and not the applicant, evidence being required to prove the case against him. Bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, conditioned on non-entry into Wakad Police Station jurisdiction till the informant's evidence is recorded, attendance at the police station as required, and no tampering with evidence or influencing/contacting the complainant or witnesses. Observations expressly confined to the bail purpose; Trial Court to decide independently on merits.

11-BA-353-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 353 OF 2026

Avinash Samhaji Nalawade ….Applicant VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra and anr. ….Respondents

Mr. Premkumar Mishra, Advocate for Applicant (Through VC). Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. D. A. Jagdale, Wakad Police Station, present.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 27^th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 925 of 2024 registered with Wakad Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 of 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4(25) of Indian Arms Act, Section 37(1), 37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

It is prosecution’s case that on 23rd August 2024, the applicant

and co-accused assaulted the first informant and his friend with a sickle with the intention to kill them on the ground of an old dispute.

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.04.01 10:57:54 +0530

Page 1 of 3

11-BA-353-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than one year and six months, yet charge has not been framed. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC., the allegations of assault are against the co-accused. It may take time to conclude the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP that there are six antecedents against the applicant. The provisions of MCOCA are applicable against the applicant. The statement under Section 18 of co-accused is recorded, wherein the role of the applicant is specifically mentioned. In the attack by the applicant, the first informant has sustained serious injuries. Hence, requested to reject the application.

I have heard both counsel, perused charge sheet and documents produced on record. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and six months. The investigation is complete, yet charge has not been framed. It may take time to conclude the trial. In statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC., the first informant has stated that the assault was done by the co-accused and not by the applicant. To prove the case against the applicant, evidence is required. Considering these facts, I pass following order:

Page 2 of 3

11-BA-353-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 925 of 2024 registered with Wakad Police Station, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Wakad Police Station till recording of evidence of the first informant.

(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3