65-BA-1073-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 65 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1073 OF 2026 Bunty Gulab Rahase VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ... Mr. Umakant Wagh for the Applicant. Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 22 JUNE 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present application, the applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with Crime No.351 of 2024 registered with Taloda Police Station, Taluka Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2) and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution’s case are such that the deceased used to run online forms filling centre at Pragati Xerox. The accused had given work of preparation of caste validity certificate to the deceased. On failure to complete the work a quarrel took place between them on 28th November 2024. Later on, on 29th November 2024, in the morning a dead body was found at the welding shop. On suspicion, FIR was registered and applicant was arrested. Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:24581 65-BA-1073-2026.doc 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the investigating agency has not collected any direct or indirect evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is contended that the only allegation against the applicant is that there had been a quarrel between him and the deceased in connection with the preparation of a caste validity certificate. According to the learned counsel, such an incident, by itself, cannot be construed as a sufficient motive for the applicant to eliminate the deceased. 5. Learned counsel further submits that this Court has granted bail to co- accused Mahada Thakare in Bail Application No. 120 of 2025 and to co- accused Dinesh Bhil in Bail Application No. 735 of 2025. It is contended that the role attributed to the present applicant is similar to that of the aforesaid co-accused and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 6. It is further submitted that the motive projected by the prosecution is inherently improbable and does not inspire confidence. The entire case being based on circumstantial evidence, there is not a single incriminating circumstance on record that conclusively connects the applicant with the commission of the offence. Learned counsel submits that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation. On these grounds, particularly the principle of parity, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged Shubham 65-BA-1073-2026.doc on bail. 7. Learned APP opposes the application by contending that the allegation against the co-accused are different. The present applicant is the prime accused who had a quarrel with the deceased, which was witnessed by witnesses namely Pralhad, Vikram and Sachin, which clearly establishes the motive of applicant to commit murder of the deceased. The offence is serious in nature and the ground of parity claimed by the applicant does not hold the field. Therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The investigation papers reveal that there had been a quarrel between the present applicant and the deceased prior to the incident. The statements of witnesses Pralhad, Vikram and Sachin indicate that the deceased was last seen in the company of the present applicant at the garage of Nimaji Walvi, where the applicant was employed. Vikram, in his statement, has stated that the applicant had taken the key of the garage, while Pralhad has stated that he had seen the deceased in the company of Bunty, the present applicant, Mahada and others shortly before the incident. 10. The material collected during investigation further shows that the applicant had obtained the key of the garage from Vikram and that both the applicant and Vikram were working at the same garage. These Shubham 65-BA-1073-2026.doc circumstances, coupled with the previous quarrel between the applicant and the deceased, prima facie indicate the existence of a motive attributable to the applicant. 11. Insofar as the contention regarding parity is concerned, the material on record discloses a distinct motive against the present applicant. Therefore, the role attributed to him cannot be said to be identical to that of the co-accused who have been granted bail. Consequently, the principle of parity is not attracted in the facts of the present case. 12. Having regard to the material collected during investigation and the specific role attributed to the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Hence, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in his favour. 13. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham