1 25. BA 1152 of 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.1152 OF 2026 OM SHAMRAO KENWADKAR PATIL VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO MEHKAR DIST. BULDHANA Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. U.R. Phasate, APP for Non-Applicant-State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATED : 05th OCTOBER 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.158 of 2026, registered with Police Station Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana, for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant is the maternal uncle of deceased Rahul Bajad. On 03.03.2026, at about 05.30 p.m., sister of the informant told him that Rahul was not answering phone calls and he had gone with his friend Dnyaneshwar Bajad. Therefore, the informant called Dnanyeshwar to 2026:BHC-NAG:13272 2 25. BA 1152 of 2026.odt know about the whereabouts of the deceased. Dnyaneshwar told the informant that he was at Netansa and deceased Rahul was with the applicant. It is further alleged that prior to one year of the incident, a dispute had arisen between the deceased and the applicant, therefore, the informant called the applicant, however, he did not answer. On 04.03.2026, the informant asked Dnyaneshwar to show the locations where they were on the previous day. Dnyaneshwar led the informant towards the agricultural field situated in MIDC area towards the bypass road. The informant noticed near the lemon tree a person laying on the boundary of the field. At that time, one Vasant Kharat informed him that someone assaulted Rahul on the head and killed him. As the deceased and the applicant had previous enmity, the informant, suspecting the involvement of the applicant, lodged a report against him. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations against the applicant are that the deceased was having love affair with the wife of the applicant. It is alleged that on 03.03.2026, the applicant committed murder of the deceased. He submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence like motive, last seen together, recovery and the report from FLY View GIS Technology Pvt. Ltd., which shows the location of the deceased and the applicant to be together along with their movements. He submits 3 25. BA 1152 of 2026.odt that so far as the last seen theory is concerned, the statement of witness viz. Dnyaneshwar Bajad cannot be believed for the reason that he was only seen along with the applicant and the deceased. Further the statement of said witness was recorded on 05.03.2026, whereas the incident occurred on 03.03.2026 i.e. almost after two days. He submits that had it been a case that the witness Dnyaneshwar, whose statement was recorded as being last seen with the deceased and the applicant, he would have immediately disclosed the said fact, however, his statement was recorded after two days and therefore, reliance cannot be placed on his statement. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that so far as the recovery of stone is concerned, it was shown from the spot of incident itself and that too, the recovery was made on 06.03.2026 i.e. almost after three days of the incident. He submits that when the dead body was found on 04.03.2026, the Investigating Officer had conducted spot panchnama, however, no stone was found at the spot. However, from the nearby place of the spot of the incident, the recovery of the stone was shown, which cannot be believed. He submits that so far as the report from FLY View GIS Technology Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, that can be considered at the time of trial. Therefore, according to him, considering the allegations against the applicant and that the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to 4 25. BA 1152 of 2026.odt show the guilt of the applicant, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 6. On the other hand, learned APP heavily relied on four circumstances to submit that it is the applicant who had committed the murder. First circumstance is that the deceased was having love affair with the wife of the applicant and therefore, the applicant was having strong motive to kill the deceased. Secondly, there is nothing to disbelieve that witness Dnyaneshwar, since from the beginning, accompanied the deceased and later on, left the spot of incident on the say of the applicant. Further the incident occurred on 03.03.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 04.03.2026 and his statement was recorded on 05.03.2026. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the statement of witness Dnyaneshwar was recorded at belated stage. Thirdly, the stone was recovered from isolated place. He invited my attention to the map, drawn by the Investigating Officer, while preparing the memorandum panchnama, wherein, according to him, there is distance between the spot of incident and spot of recovery and that the said stone was having blood stains. Lastly, he submits that the applicant and the deceased were together on the date of incident which could be gathered from the report of FLY View GIS Technology Pvt. Ltd., whose report indicates the movement of the applicant and the deceased together. Under such 5 25. BA 1152 of 2026.odt circumstances, he submits that all these circumstances shows involvement of the applicant and therefore, it is only applicant who has committed the offence and therefore, prays for rejection of the application. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, apparently, it appears that the FIR was registered by the maternal uncle of the deceased. From the charge-sheet, it appears that the applicant had motive to kill the deceased. From the statement of the wife of the applicant, it could be gathered that initially she was in contact with the deceased, however, later on, she was not in contact with the deceased as the applicant gave her understanding. However, it appears that both are in touch with each other and therefore, it appears that the applicant was having strong motive to kill the deceased. 8. The second circumstance against the applicant i.e. last seen theory. Upon perusal of the statement of witness Dnyaneshwar, it is crystal clear that the said witness was with the deceased and the applicant and he left the deceased and the applicant at the spot of incident. Not only that, the said spot was also shown by him as he was the person who had last seen the deceased in the company of the applicant on the said spot. It is to be noted that this witness has 6 25. BA 1152 of 2026.odt specifically stated that he left the spot of incident on the say of the applicant. Under such circumstances, the deceased was last seen in the company of the applicant and thereafter, no one saw the deceased alive. Further the dead body was found on the next day i.e. on 04.03.2026 and there is also a recovery of stone at the behest of the applicant from some distance of the spot of incident. Both these circumstances are incriminating. 9. Further, the report of FLY View GIS Technology Pvt. Ltd., goes to show the movement of the applicant and the deceased that they were together. Apart from this, perusal of the post mortem report shows that there are four injuries on the body of the deceased. Further, the report suggests that the death was caused due to head injury. It notes that there are injuries under scalp hematoma present over parietal region of size 06 x 05 cm and also fracture of base of skull on middle fossa on left side of size 4 x 0.1 c.m. Considering all these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out to grant bail, since all the incriminating circumstances are against the applicant. Hence, the application is rejected. (M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) asd