1000-BA-1345-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1345 OF 2026 Shaikh Ajimoddin Jilani @ Munna Shaikh ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra and Another ..RESPONDENTS WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1408 OF 2026 Sanjay Janardhan Gitte ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1400 OF 2026 Shaikh Shakil Rauf ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1473 OF 2026 Madhukar Goroba Ingle ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT .... Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for applicant in BA/1345/2026 Mr. S.B. Solanke, Advocate for applicants in BA/1408/2026 and BA/1400/2026 Mr. V.H. Solanke, Advocate h/f Mr. R.T. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant in BA/1473/2026 Mr. K.K. Naik, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr. U.M. Maske Patil, Advocate for Assist to A.P.P. .... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.P.P. for State and learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 – informant. 1 / 6 2026:BHC-AUG:45844 1000-BA-1345-26.odt 2. Present applications are preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 38 of 2026 dated 15th February, 2026 registered with Yermala Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The applicants are the original accused persons and they were arrested on 15th February, 2026. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has also been filed in the present offence. The applicants are awaiting trial. On query, learned A.P.P. submits that the charges are yet to be framed. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that deceased – Satish Munde had accompanied present applicants to Mahakali Kala Kednre on the evening of 12th February, 2026. According to prosecution, while returning in the car of applicant, after midnight, a quarrel arose between the applicants and the deceased and there was abuses hurled against each other. The prosecution alleges that the applicants, therefore, stopped the car near the highway and assaulted the deceased – Satish with fists and kicks. It is further alleged that the applicant – Shaikh Ajimoddin subsequently had carried Satish, who was unconscious and unresponsive, to the house of the informant. Satish was taken for medical treatment and the doctors, after examining him, had declared him dead. The present informant, who is father of deceased – Satish, therefore registered the F.I.R. on 15th February, 2026 alleging commission of murder of Satish at the hands of present applicants. 2 / 6 1000-BA-1345-26.odt 5. Learned counsel for the applicants jointly submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged roadside assault. The reliance of prosecution on the CCTV footage only shows that Satish was walking out Mahakali Kala Kendre, but does not reveal the incident of assault and neither shows any particular act of assault at the behest of present applicants. Admittedly, it is not the case of prosecution that any weapon was used in the alleged offence. Learned counsel submit that investigation does not identify as to who inflicted the vital blow on the abdomen of Satish or the prosecution material does not furnish anything that establishes a shared intention of the applicants to cause death of Satish. Reliance is also placed on the conduct of applicant – Shaikh Ajimoddin in bringing Satish home and suspecting not taking him to the hospital. All the four applicants are in custody since 15th February, 2026, and therefore, their further detention would not serve the investigating purpose. 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the bail applications and submitted that the applicants and the deceased left Mahakali Kala Kendra together. He further submitted that Satish, when was brought home, was unresponsive and unconscious. The postmortem report reveals that death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to blunt trauma to abdomen. Prosecution also relies on the surrounding circumstances such as spot panchanama and medical report and the opinion of doctor for cause of death. Learned A.P.P. also raised concern about the present applicants, who are residents of same village and they have acquaintance with the local witnesses. He apprehends that there is likelihood 3 / 6 1000-BA-1345-26.odt that the present applicants, after release on bail, may try to interfere and tamper with the evidence and the local witnesses. 7. The death and seriousness of abdominal injuries cannot be minimized in any manner. The postmortem also records internal bleeding. The injuries sustained to the deceased are supported by the medical opinion stating that blunt trauma to abdomen is a cause of death of deceased – Satish. 8. However, it is pertinent to note that the medical record does not give a word to the extent of identifying the assailants or the exact role of each of the assailants in causing the abdominal injury which is resulted into death of deceased – Satish. The CCTV footage inspection records Satish leaving Mahakali Kala Kendra walking and does not depict of assault at that place. The material concerning the journey thereafter is a substantial material which the prosecution is entitled to prove at the time of trial. It is necessary to consider, treating the persons by together as proof of each applicant inflicted fatal injury or had shared the requisite intentions. Alongwith the arguments of learned counsel, I have also considered the order passed by the learned trial Court pertaining to the obligation of applicant – Shaikh Ajimoddin. The alleged disclosure concerning the place where the car stopped cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. Equally, the absence of eye witnesses or weapon does not make prosecution case unattainable. These considerations are on the present assessment and are not finding of guilt, common intention or clarification of the offence. As far as bail applications are concerned, prime consideration should 4 / 6 1000-BA-1345-26.odt be to the prima facie prosecution material, gravity of the accusation, risk of life and interference and inference to the prosecution witnesses without conducting a detailed trial. Filing of charge-sheet or reliance on subsequent evidence does not on its own decide allegation of guilt. In the present case, the investigation is complete, charge-sheet is filed and the applicants have been in custody for more than seven months. On the Court’s query, learned A.P.P. fairly submits that the charge in the present case has not yet been framed. 9. Taking all the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that the material collected by the investigating agency does not presently attribute a particular vital act to any one of the present applicants. The available material does not warrant continuous detention of the present applicants pending trial. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the present applications can be allowed and the applicants can be released on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order :- ORDER (i) The Bail Applications are allowed. (ii) The applicants shall be released on bail in Crime No. 38 of 2026 dated 15th February, 2026 registered with Yermala Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one or two solvent surety each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : 5 / 6 1000-BA-1345-26.odt a) The applicants shall attend the trial Court on every date fixed, unless his attendance is specifically exempted. b) The applicants shall not enter Kaij Taluka till conclusion of trial. c) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. d) The applicants shall furnish their current residential addresses and mobile numbers 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. e) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if they possess passport, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of their release. f) The applicants shall not involve themselves in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. g) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. (iii) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of these bail applications. The trial Court shall decide the case on the evidence led before it. (iv) The Bail Applications are disposed of in the above terms. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) SSD 6 / 6