1 51 BA 1212.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1212/2026 (Ranjit S/o Mangilal Marko Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Preeti S. Gwalani (appointed) for applicant. Mr. A. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 21/09/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 204/2025 registered with Police Station Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant lodged the first information report (“FIR”) stating that the deceased namely Sundar Ranjit Marko was the wife of the accused. They were residing and working as labour at brick kiln owned by Sachin Darne, situated at Hiwra Darne, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal. On 23/03/2025 at about 05.00 p.m. applicant/ accused and deceased went to village Hiwra Darne for purchasing grocery. While 2 51 BA 1212.26 returning towards brick kiln on motor bike, they fell down from motor bike and sustained injuries. Thereafter, on 25/03/2025 at about 10.30 p.m. the deceased Sunder quarreled with applicant/accused on the account of aforesaid incident leading to a scuffle. During their scuffle, the applicant has pushed his wife due to which she sustained head injury. On 26/03/2025 at 06.00 am. when the applicant tried to wake his wife, she did not reply, thereafter he realized that she has died. Thereafter, the applicant himself went to the police station and disclosed the facts. Hence, the report. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the allegations are taken as it is, Section 103 of the BNS is not made out. The applicant himself went to the Police Station and disclosed that he had pushed the deceased without intending to cause death. On the next day, when she did not wake up in the morning, he has informed to others and accordingly he went to the Police Station and disclosed everything that happened on the night of 25/03/2025. She submits that if the allegations are considered, it could be gathered that two days prior to the incident when the deceased and the applicant were 3 51 BA 1212.26 going on motorcycle, they met with an accident and both of them sustained certain injuries. On 25.03.2025, after the deceased and the applicant had dinner, the deceased questioned the applicant as to why he had caused her to fall from the motorcycle. Thereafter, the deceased slapped the applicant, whereupon the applicant also gave her two to four slaps and pushed her. On the next morning, when the applicant noticed that the deceased was not responding, he immediately informed the owner of the brick kiln where they were working about the said incident. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and narrated the entire incident. Under such circumstances, considering the nature of the allegations, as the alleged act of the applicant was without intending to cause death, the fact that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed and that the applicant is in custody for about one and a half years, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that postmortem report shows that the cause of death is due to head injury with collective effect of other injuries. There is a rib fracture to the deceased and 13 injuries were noticed on 4 51 BA 1212.26 the body of the deceased. There is also gross hematoma under meninges blood clots on occipital region as well as right temporal region. Under such circumstances though the applicant has surrendered and narrated the story, however it is very difficult to believe the story of the applicant. On the contrary, the learned APP submits that the applicant has beaten the deceased mercilessly and committed the murder. Under such circumstances, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. I have considered the submission of both the sides. Prima-facie, it appears that it is the applicant who went to the Police Station and disclosed the incident dated 25/03/2025. He has narrated that at about 10.30 pm after the dinner was over, the wife of the applicant questioned him as to why he had made her fall from the motorcycle and thereafter, she slapped the applicant. It further appears that the applicant had also slapped her 2 to 4 times and pushed her. This was the narration by the applicant, whereas the postmortem report indicates that there were some old healed injuries on the body of the deceased including other fresh injuries. It further appears that there is injury to the head as well as there is fracture 5 51 BA 1212.26 to the third left rib of the deceased. The cause of death is stated to be head injury with collective effect of other injuries. Upon consideration of the statements of the witnesses, it shows that the statement of the owner of the brick kiln that the applicant has disclosed the same facts to him as disclosed to the police. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the opinion that whatever narration has been made by the applicant to the witnesses would amount to extra judicial confession and is weak peace of evidence. Apart from this, there is no other material against the applicant. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the applicant is behind bars since 26/03/2025 and now investigation is complete, charge-sheet is filed, I am inclined to grant bail by imposing stringent conditions on the applicant. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Ranjit S/o Mangilal Marko be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 204/2025 registered with Police Station Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS”) on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount i.e. one from Yavatmal District 6 51 BA 1212.26 and one surety from permanent resident. (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer. (v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial on even a single date or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 8. The observation of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations. 9. Fees of the appointed counsel be paid as per Rules. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/09/2026 18:34:52