1 25 BA 1027.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1027/2026 (Visamber S/o. Digambar Manjare 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.M. Khan, Advocate for applicant. Mr. U.R. Phasate, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 28/09/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 589/2025 registered with Police Station Badnera, Dist. Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 61(2), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 13/11/2025, the informant, Bakaramji Bhalavi, lodged a first information report (“FIR”) stating that his son Pramod was married to Accused No.2 and Pramod had told him that they used to quarrel with each other on the ground that Accused No.2 used to talk with some other person. On 11/11/2025, the informant received a phone 2 25 BA 1027.26.odt call from Accused No.2 informing him that Pramod had not returned home. On 12/11/2025, the informant alongwith his son-in-law and cousin brother went and inquired with Accused No.2 regarding the company, in which Pramod was working, thereafter, through his employer, they learnt that Pramod borrowed Rs.100/- from his employer and in the night at around 09:00 p.m. he left the company. Thereafter, a missing report with Police Station Badnera was lodged. Thereafter in the night at 10:00 p.m. the informant received a call from the Badnera Police Station informing him that they have found a dead body which body was identified by accused No.2 of belonging to Pramod. Accordingly, FIR was lodged against unknown persons alleging murder of his son. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no material against the applicant in order to connect him with the alleged crime. He submits that it is alleged that there were illicit relations between accused Nos.1 - applicant and 2. It is alleged that the husband of accused No.2 was killed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Initially the missing report was registered on 12/11/2025 by the accused No.2. On 12/11/25, at about 10.00 pm, the dead body of the deceased was found, wherein the cause of 3 25 BA 1027.26.odt death was shown to be head injury. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the FIR was registered against unknown persons. He submits that had it been a case that there was suspicion on the applicant, the name of the applicant would have been mentioned in the FIR. So far as the recovery of sickle is concerned which is shown as an incriminating circumstance against the applicant, since it was recovered at the behest of the applicant from the spot, he submits that when the spot of incident was already known to the investigating agency, the importance of recovery automatically loses its significance. Under such circumstances, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that there is strong motive with the applicant for commission of crime. He submits that the applicant was having illicit relation with the wife of the deceased and they together hatched the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Apart from that, there is recovery of the sickle at the behest of the applicant under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (“BSA”). He further relies on the call detail records, wherein it could be gathered that before and after the 4 25 BA 1027.26.odt incident, there were calls between the applicant and accused No.2 and the location of both the accused persons i.e. applicant and accused No. 2 is shown at the spot of incident. Under such circumstances, he prayed to reject the application. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, and after perusal of the record, it could be gathered that no call detail records are placed on record. Neither it was filed along with the charge sheet, nor later on it was submitted to the Trial Court. It further appears that now the charges are framed and even the prosecution has examined one witness. Till today, no call detail records are placed before the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, this Court is restrained from relying on the said call detail report. 7. Now coming to the material which was placed on record, it could be gathered that the applicant was having illicit relations with the accused No. 2, which could be gathered from the mobile inspection report, wherein there are certain chats between the applicant and the accused No 2, however it could be further gathered that there is nothing to suggest that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were 5 25 BA 1027.26.odt intending to kill the deceased. The motive may be strong, however that by itself is not sufficient to connect the applicant with the crime unless there is cogent material on record. Perusal of the further material shows that recovery of sickle was made under Section 23 of the BSA at the behest of the applicant. Further, it could be gathered that the spot of incident is shown as jungle, wherein the dead body was found, from the same spot the recovery of sickle was shown to be made, though, from some distance. Apart from these two circumstances against the applicant, there are no other circumstances. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Visamber S/o. Digambar Manjare be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 589/2025 registered with Police Station Badnera, Dist. Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 61(2), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. (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 6 25 BA 1027.26.odt 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. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 9. 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. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2026 17:17:08