This order is corrected as per order dated 22.09.2025 1004 (1) BA NO. 776 OF 2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1004 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 776 OF 2025 JAYWANT GANESH PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. N. L. Chaudhari, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent/State Mr. R. R. Raghuwanshi Rahul R, Advocate for the informant .… CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 16.09.2025 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for granting bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.232 of 2024, registered at Nandurbar (city) Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant pointed out the report lodged by Krushna Dilip Bhoi, in which he averred that his brother Dhiraj was at home on 20.03.2024. At around 05:00 p.m., Dhiraj’s friend, Ram Marathe, came his house and informed the informant that his brother had demanded the key of motorcycle. The informant gave him key and requested him to provide a bag of milk. Ram handed over the bag of milk and then left. The informant then made a phone call to 1 of 4 (( 2 )) 1004 (1) BA NO. 776 OF 2025 his brother, asking him to come home for dinner. Dhiraj replied that he was near the Maruti Temple and would arrive shortly. The informant waited, but his brother did not return home. Thereafter, he again made a phone call to his brother, but his mobile phone was switched off. He then called his friends and relatives to enquire about Dhiraj’s whereabouts. He informed his uncle, Kishor Vadile, about the situation. While searching for Dhiraj, his friend told him that Dhiraj was lying near the layout of the hill. Thereafter, the informant along with his uncle went there and they saw that Dhiraj was lying dead. Therefore, the report was lodged. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the earlier bail application of this applicant was withdrawn. However, now there is change in circumstance, as the charge has been framed. A fresh application was moved before the Sessions Court, but it was rejected. He further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. The applicant has roots in the society and he will not flee away from the trial. He is a 20 year old student and has no criminal antecedents. The trial will take a long period. It is lastly prayed to allow the application. 5. The learned APP for the State strongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicant has involved in a serious crime and had previously withdrawn his bail application. Therefore, this application cannot be considered on merits. He pointed out the postmortem report and 2 of 4 (( 3 )) 1004 (1) BA NO. 776 OF 2025 the seizure panchnama. He further submitted that in the CCTV footage, the applicant is seen with the co-accused. There is incriminating material against the applicant. If the applicant is released on bail, he will certainly pressurize the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He lastly prayed to reject the application. 6. Perused the police papers, particularly the report and the CCTV footage. In the CCTV footage, the applicant is seen along with the co- accused, particularly with Gaurav Khedkar, who has been released on bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The trial will take a long period. The applicant has roots in the society and he will not flee away from the trial. Considering all these aspects, and on the principle that bail is rule and jail is exception, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order: ::ORDER:: I. The application is allowed. II. The applicant, in connection with Crime No.232 of 2024, registered at Nandurbar (city) Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount on following conditions:- a) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution 3 of 4 (( 4 )) 1004 (1) BA NO. 776 OF 2025 evidence and shall not pressurize the witnesses, in any manner. b) The applicant, except on the date fixed for hearing of the trial, shall not enter in Nandurbar city, District Nandurbar, till the conclusion of the trial. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav 4 of 4