1 45.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 45 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2026 RAVINDRA SUBHAH BORDE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. Bobade Sopan Gynba APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.B. Narwade Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Sultana R. Khan (Appointed) … CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 28.09.2026 PER COURT : . This appeal is under Sections 103 (1) of the BNS and 3(2) (v), 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, thereby challenging the rejection of the regular bail application filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant came to be arrested on 30.08.2025 in connection with C.R. No.431/2025 registered at Chikalthana Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 3. As per the First Information Report, the incident had occurred on 28.08.2025. The informant states that the present appellant and deceased were drinking liquor together. Some dispute arose between them. The deceased stabbed the appellant. Appellant is stated to have assaulted the deceased with some weapon, thereby causing injury to his chest. He was taken to hospital. He subsequently died. Hence, 2026:BHC-AUG:44102 2 45.doc offence of murder came to be charged against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in jail for over a period of one year. There is absolutely no evidence to attribute the charge of murder against the appellant for killing the deceased. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the first information report so also the statement of the eye-witness which shows that this is a case of injury being caused to the deceased in a fight between appellant and deceased. He, therefore, contends that the attribution of deliberate injury to the appellant is not possible. According to him, the alleged weapon used in the assault has not been seized at his instance nor after its seizure, the weapon came to be identified by the eyewitness. He, therefore, seeks enlargement of the appellant on bail. 5. Learned APP and learned counsel for informant opposed the appeal by citing the seriousness of the crime. It is further contended that there is evidence in the form of statement of eye witnesses indicating that the appellant having caused injury to the deceased which led to his death. They also invited attention to the the post- mortem report which shows that injury to the chest resulted in the death of the deceased. It is further argued that, having regard to the nature of the offence and evidence collected during the course of investigation, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for informant drew attention of the Court to statement of one witness to claim that there was motive for appellant to commit murder of deceased. 6. Apparently, the record indicates that the incident has occurred 3 45.doc spontaneously. There is no reason to believe that there was any premeditated plan on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased. Though, the statement of the witness is referred to indicate that there was some dispute with regard to monetary transaction between appellant and deceased, the fact that, both of them were consuming liquor together, does not support the said contention. Thus, apparently, there is an absence of motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased. This gets strengthened from the fact that the present appellant was one of the persons who took the deceased to the hospital. Needless to say that, if the appellant wanted to kill the deceased, he would not have taken him to the hospital. 7. The first informant does not specifically identify the weapon used by the appellant for the purpose of the assault in his statement. Apparently, the weapon has not been shown to the witness in order to identify it as the same weapon used in the assault. Having regard to these facts and also in view of the fact that, there is absolutely no material to connect the appellant with the crime and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in a short period of time, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Appellant has no criminal antecedents and he is not likely to flee from justice. Hence, the order : ORDER i) Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii) The appellant be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R. No.431/2025 dated 29.08.2025 registered at Chikalthana Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable 4 45.doc under Sections 103 (1) of BNS and 3(2)(v), 3(2) (va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount. (iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (v) He is directed to attend all dates of hearing before trial Court unless exempted by the said Court. (vi) The above observations are prima-facie in nature and the trial Court shall not get influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. (vii) The fees of learned appointed counsel is quantified at Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). ( R. M. JOSHI, J. ) V.S.Joshi