-1- 53-BA-1356-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1356 OF 2026 YOGESH KALYAN NAGE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ..... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke APP for Respondent - State : Mr. D. J. Patil ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. The present applicant seeks his release on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, in connection with C.R. No. 378 of 2025 registered with Gangapur Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. His earlier application for bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur on 27th April, 2026. 3. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 16th September, 2025, between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. The FIR was registered on the following day, i.e. 17th September 2025, and the 2026:BHC-AUG:42611 -2- 53-BA-1356-2026 applicant was arrested on the same day. There were two accused persons, out of whom accused No. 1, Kanifnath, who was alleged to have possessed and used the firearm, is still absconding. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Rahul was addicted to liquor and was a friend of accused No.1. He was allegedly induced in the illegal sale of liquor. The deceased was repeatedly advised by his family members not to remain in the company of accused No.1. On 16th September 2025, the deceased joined the company of accused No.1 and the present applicant. The CCTV footage collected from Niyati Beer Bar shows that the deceased and both the accused were consuming liquor and spending time together. It is alleged that they thereafter went to an agricultural field and continued consuming liquor. The quarrel allegedly took place between accused No.1 and deceased, whereupon accused No.1 fired upon the deceased from a country- made firearm. Certain persons who were nearby heard the sounds of gunshots, and thereafter allegedly saw accused No.1 and the present applicant running away from the scene. The deceased was found lying in the field with firearm injuries. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that, the FIR is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness -3- 53-BA-1356-2026 to the occurrence. The CCTV footage merely shows that three persons were drinking together. It does not disclose any quarrel, animosity, conspiracy or preparation to commit the offence. The prosecution has not attributed the use or possession of the firearm to the applicant. The firearm is alleged to have been purchased and used by accused No.1, who thereafter absconded. 6. Learned Advocate further submitted that no weapon, bloodstained articles or other incriminating material was recovered from the applicant despite his police custody. No motive of previous enmity between the applicant and the deceased is alleged. The charge-sheet merely states that the applicant assisted accused No.1, without specifying the nature of such assistance. Witnesses also only claim to have seen the applicant running from the vicinity after hearing the sounds of the firearm being fired. Such conduct, in the absence of any other connecting material, is merely equivocal and cannot prima facie establish that the applicant shared the intention of accused No.1. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has remained in custody since 17th September, 2025. His further detention is therefore unnecessary. 7. The learned APP opposed the application and submitted -4- 53-BA-1356-2026 that the applicant does not dispute that he was in the company of the deceased and accused No.1. The CCTV footage shows them consuming liquor together. The statements of the witnesses indicate that all three were subsequently seen drinking in the agricultural field. After sounds resembling gunshots were heard, the applicant and accused No.1 were seen running away from the field. The deceased was thereafter found at the same place with firearm injuries to his abdomen, chest and leg. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, constitute sufficient prima facie material against the applicant. It was also pointed out that accused No.1 and the firearm used in the offence are yet to be traced. 8. I have considered the above submissions and perused the charge-sheet. At the stage of considering the bail application, a meticulous evaluation of the evidence or final determination regarding the existence of common intention is neither permissible nor necessary. Nevertheless, some material must be disclosed on a prima facie basis for attributing the alleged offence to a particular accused. The gravity of the offence is an important consideration, but the gravity of the accusation cannot substitute the requirement of examining the individual role attributed to the applicant. -5- 53-BA-1356-2026 9. The homicidal death of deceased Rahul due to firearm is not in dispute by the present applicant. The post-mortem report records multiple firearm injuries and attributes the death to haemorrhage and shock resulting therefrom. The specific allegation of possessing the firearm and firing upon the deceased is however, exclusively against accused No.1. No witness has stated that the applicant possessed or used any firearm. No firearm, ammunition, bloodstained clothes, or other incriminating articles were recovered from him. 10. The important piece of evidence pertaining to the CCTV footage establishes that the applicant, accused No.1, and the deceased were together and consumed liquor at the beer bar. However, the footage does not disclose any quarrel, threat or conduct suggestive of a pre-arranged plan. The material, on the contrary, indicates that the three were on friendly terms and were consuming liquor together. The prosecution has not brought on record any previous enmity or motive on the part of the applicant to cause the death of Rahul. 11. The prosecution witness Narayan Chavan, who claims that he saw all three persons consuming liquor near the field and that, after hearing sounds resembling gunshots, he saw accused -6- 53-BA-1356-2026 No.1 and the present applicant running in different directions. Other witnesses also claim to have seen the applicant running from the vicinity. These circumstances may establish the presence of the applicant near the place of occurrence. The mere presence or association, however, is not by itself synonymous with participation or shared intention. The statement of witness Narayan Chavan was recorded on 28th November, 2025 more than three months after the occurrence. Evidently, the delay and lapse of time in recording his statement will have to be tested during the trial. 12. The charge-sheet further alleges that the applicant assisted accused No.1 in committing the murder, but it does not state what act of assistance was rendered by him. There is no allegation that the applicant procured the firearm, killed the deceased, exhorted accused No.1, facilitated the firing, removed the weapon, destroyed any evidence, or assisted accused No.1 in absconding. There is no material presently indicating any prior making of plans. Common intention may develop at the stage, at the spot, and need not always be proved by direct evidence. There must still be circumstances from which such intention can prima facie be inferred. Mere presence in the company of the principal accused and departure from the place after an unexpected firing -7- 53-BA-1356-2026 took place would not, without something further, necessarily attract Section 3(5) of the BNS. 13. The circumstance that the applicant was seen running from the vicinity cannot be ignored, but its interpretation must await evidence. In an appropriate case, such conduct may constitute an incriminating circumstance because it is capable of more than one explanation. Particularly, when a firearm is allegedly discharged by another person. At the bail stage, this circumstance cannot be taken as conclusive proof that the applicant shared the intention to commit murder. 14. The principal accused continues to abscond, and the firearm has also not been recovered. Thus circumstance justifies continuation of the efforts to arrest accused No.1, but the applicant cannot be detained indefinitely merely because the principal accused has evaded arrest, unless some material shows that the applicant is assisting him or obstructing the investigation. No such material has been placed on record. 15. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there are two criminal antecedents against the present applicant. All the offences which are registered against him are serious in -8- 53-BA-1356-2026 nature. No doubt, criminal antecedents are one of the considerations to be taken into account while deciding the bail application. However, in the absence of material showing conviction or misuse of liberty, the same cannot, by itself, outweigh the nature of the prima facie material in the present crime. Appropriate conditions can address the apprehension of interference with the witnesses. 16. The investigation qua the applicant is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. He has been in custody since 17th September, 2025. His further custodial detention is now unwarranted for the purpose of investigation. Even if the principal accused is arrested and taken up for investigation, an appropriate condition can be imposed upon the present applicant to cooperate with the investigation at that stage. 17. In the totality of the circumstances, without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the material presently available is insufficient to justify the applicant's continued incarceration pending trial. The applicant, therefore, deserves to be released on bail. Hence, the following order :- -9- 53-BA-1356-2026 ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant shall be released on bail in C.R. No. 378 of 2025 registered with Gangapur Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act, on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on the first Monday and the last Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 02:00 p.m. till framing of charge and thereafter shall regularly attend each and every effective date before the trial court. b) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. c) The applicant shall furnish their current residential address and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court within seven days of release, intimate any change forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further investigation is required. -10- 53-BA-1356-2026 d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if he posses passport, shall deposit the same with the Trial Court within seven days of their release. e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. g) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. (iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale