1 27.ba.1123.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1123 OF 2026 Babbu s/o Vishwanath Uike ..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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri T.U. Tathod, advocate for the applicant. Shri A.B. Badar, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 22.09.2026. Heard. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.33 of 2026 registered with Bhatkuli Police Station, Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 217, 238, 248, 125(a), 281, 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Initially, the father of the deceased Jiteraja had lodged FIR alleging motor vehicle accident where one unknown vehicle gave severe dash to the vehicle due to which his son Jiteraja died and applicant/accused Babbu also sustained injuries. However, during the investigation it was revealed that the informant lodged false FIR so as to save applicant Babbu, who is his nephew. The informant concealed the murder of his son committed by the applicant over a petty issue. The informant was also arraigned as an accused during investigation. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, the applicant was 18 years of age whereas the deceased 2026:BHC-NAG:12530 2 27.ba.1123.2026 was 13 years of age at the time of incident. Both are cousin brothers and their mothers are real sisters. However, over a petty issue, the applicant committed murder of the deceased Jiteraja. He invited my attention to the general diary entry, wherein it is specifically stated that initially informant gave false information about the death of Jiteraja stating that he died in an accident. However, during investigation it was transpired that the information given by the informant, was false. It is submitted that the applicant has given blows with the help of knife on account of eating chicken pieces. He submits that considering the nature of allegations, the offence under Section 103 of BNS cannot be said to be made out, as there was no intention on the part of the applicant to commit the murder of the deceased. As there was sudden quarrel between the deceased and the applicant, the alleged incident took place, which could be gathered from the various statements and therefore, considering the age of the applicant, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the application by submitting that the family members of the applicant have mislead the investigating agency by registering a false report. It was not an accident, but the murder was committed by the applicant. Since both the parties are the near relatives, they tried to hide the offence and therefore, considering the statement of eyewitnesses and the postmortem report, the learned APP submits that the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 3 27.ba.1123.2026 6. I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the FIR as well as the general diary details dated 26.02.2026 as well as the statement of the eyewitnesses. It appears that the applicant and the deceased are cousin brothers and their mothers are real sisters. The informant is the father of the deceased and uncle of the applicant. It appears that on a petty issue the incident took place. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, statement of independent witnesses were recorded and offence under Section 103 and other Sections of BNS were added. Postmortem report shows two stab injuries on the person of deceased Jiteraja. Perusal of the statements reveals that on account of taking number of pieces of chicken, the quarrel took place between the applicant and deceased. Accordingly, the applicant being 18 years seems to have overpowered deceased Jiteraja and gave blows with the help of knife. 7. So far as the applicability of Section 103 of BNS is concerned, it is the matter of the Trial. So far as the nature of allegations are concerned, prima facie the circumstances under which the incident occurred those are necessary to be considered. Therefore, in my opinion, in the present case, as the intention was lacking, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant since the applicant is 18 years of age, the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed. Hence the following order : (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicant Babbu s/o Vishwanath Uike @ Gond Adiwasi in connection with Crime No.33 4 27.ba.1123.2026 of 2026 registered with Bhatkuli Police Station, Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 217, 238, 248, 125(a), 281, 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. (c) The applicant 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. (d) The applicant 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. (e) The applicant shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for one date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 6. The observations are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same . 7. All Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 22/09/2026 18:19:43