1 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 199 OF 2025 Onkar s/o Mahendra Talmale -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. D.V. Chauhan (Senior Advocate) / P.P. a/b. Mr. A.M. Kadukar, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2026. Heard. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.580/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3/25 and 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, registered with Police Station Kondhali, District Nagpur. 3. As per the First Information Report (F.I.R.), on 26/07/2023, a missing report was lodged regarding Nirala kumar Jayprakash Singh, who had left his residence on 25/07/2023 for a meeting at Chitnavis Centre, Nagpur, and had not returned. During the inquiry, the police received information regarding the disappearance of the said person and Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:13933 2 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 Amrish Devdatta Gole, who was also reported missing. During the investigation, it was allegedly revealed that the accused persons, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, took the said persons to a farmhouse at Ringanabodi, assaulted them with firearms, and thereafter set their bodies on fire to destroy evidence. The partially burnt bodies were allegedly wrapped in a plastic tarpaulin and thrown into the Wardha River near Talegaon. Based on these allegations, the First Information Report (F.I.R.) came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel, Mr. Singh, submits that though he has raised the ground that grounds of arrest have not been supplied to the applicant in the present application, he does not wish to press the same and wants to argue the matter on merits. Accordingly, this Court has proceeded to hear the matter on merits. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has raised three grounds:- (i) The case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete against the present applicant; (ii) Delay in trial; (iii) Old-aged parents. Piyush Mahajan 3 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested on 28/07/2023, however, there is not much progress in the trial. The present application was filed by the applicant on 06/02/2025, however, the status report was called on 29/09/2025. Only after calling the status report by this Court, the trial Court framed the charges on 16/10/2025. He submits that though after framing of the charge, 31 witnesses are examined till today, however, he submits that, 132 witnesses have been shown in the charge-sheet. One does not know when the trial will conclude, and therefore, he submits that the applicant deserves to be granted bail on the ground of “delay in trial”. He further submits that, so far as the circumstances against the applicant are concerned, according to the learned counsel, there are no clinching circumstances pointing towards the involvement of the present applicant. There is no complete chain of circumstances, and therefore, he submits that, considering the fact that the applicant is behind bars since 28/07/2023, and there is no sufficient material against the applicant, so also, the fact that the applicant has old-aged parents and no one is there to look after them, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. Piyush Mahajan 4 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Chauhan, vehemently opposes the application and submits that the applicant is the main accused. There is more than sufficient material against the applicant. The applicant and other co- accused persons have killed two persons. After killing the deceased persons, they snatched a demand draft of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. This Court, while dealing with the bail application of one of the co-accused, namely, Harsh Saudagar Bagade, has dealt in detail with the role played by the applicant. From the beginning till the commission of the crime, the applicant was present along with the deceased persons. He submits that the deceased persons were shot by the applicant and other co-accused persons, and thereafter, their bodies were burnt and thrown into the Wardha River. Therefore, he submits that the applicant and other co- accused persons have committed brutal murder of the deceased persons. He further submits that the applicant has not approached the trial Court by raising the ground of “delay in trial”. If the applicant would have raised the said ground before the trial Court, then only this Court should consider his application on that ground. Even there are no pleadings to that effect in the application. Under such circumstances, he prayed for rejection of the application. Piyush Mahajan 5 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 7. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, on 26/07/2023, one Anjali Singh filed a missing report that her husband, Nirala kumar Singh is missing since 25/07/2023 at Sitaburdi Police Station. There was another missing report filed regarding Ambrish Gole. The CCTV footage dated 25/07/2023 initially shows that the Applicant, Onkar, was present at Wings Cafe at about 1:00 pm in Nagpur with the deceased and co-accused - Vishal Punj. Thereafter, they went to Wood Packer Company owned by the applicant, after leaving from Wings Cafe which can be seen from the CCTV footage of Wood Packer Company. The next chain of circumstance is the presence at Rana Dhaba on 25/07/2023 whereof the CCTV footage confirms the presence of the present applicant at around 7:51 pm with the deceased Nirmala kumar and Ambrish. Another circumstance is that the presence of the applicant is recorded in the CCTV footage of HP Petro Pump in the night of 25/07/2023, and CCTV of Gondkhairi Toll Plaza of 25/07/2023 at around 20:13 also shows presence of applicant proceeding from Nagpur towards Amravati. Even, the statement of witness, namely Sindvar Warthi, specifically Piyush Mahajan 6 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 records the presence of the applicant on 25/07/2023 along with co-accused Lucky Turkel at the farmhouse owned by the father of Lucky, namely Sanjay Turke. The spot panchanama shows the presence of blood of the deceased persons at the farm house where the incident is alleged to have taken place. 9. There are also multiple phone calls and CDR records of the applicant of the relevant dates with other co-accused. During investigation, the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the present Applicant led to discovery of two pistols used in the commission of offence, clothes worn by the Applicant at the time of offence and the spot of incident being shown. The Hyundai i10 car belonged to one of the deceased, Amrish Gole. The applicant was seen in that i10 car in multiple CCTV footages. Even, the blood stains were collected from a Hyundai i10 car bearing Registration No. MH-31-FA-5153 used in the commission of crime. Dead bodies were carried in this car and the CA report confirms the blood of deceased. This car was also noticed crossing toll plaza at Amravati Road. The Yamaha motorcycle used in the commission of crime bearing No. MH-40- AW-2242 was also seen passing through toll plaza in the CCTV footage on 25/07/2023 and it belongs to the present applicant, which is evident from the Piyush Mahajan 7 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 documents vehicle particulars given by the Motor Vehicle Department. Though, this motorcycle was driven by co-accused Dinesh Shivepeth. Apart from other circumstances, there are relevant statements of various witnesses to connect the present applicant not only to the crime scene but also his association with the other co-accused and the deceased. The statements also elaborate the event which occurred on 25/07/2023 and 26/07/2023. The statement of Anjali Singh also establishes the presence of the applicant with deceased persons on the day of incident which was told to her by the co-accused, Vishal Punj. Even the statement of Himani Chauhan states that the applicant had confessed to her about killing of deceased person by his friends. Said Himani had informed about the incident to Kunda Batve which is evident from her statement. The allegation against the applicant is also that he has snatched the demand draft of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Therefore, there are clinching circumstances against the applicant connecting him with the murder of two victims. Since the beginning from Wings Cafe Nagpur, the applicant was seen in the company of the deceased persons. He was also seen with them at Rana Dhaba. Thereafter, they were not seen alive by anyone. Considering serious allegations of cold-blooded double murder and sufficient material on record, the applicant has Piyush Mahajan 8 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 not made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of merits. 10. So far as the ground raised by the applicant in respect of delay is concerned, apparently, there are no specific averments in the application stating that the applicant is praying bail on the ground of “delay in trial”. The present application was initially filed on 06/02/2025. However, one of the grounds specifically raised by the applicant was that he has not been informed about the grounds of arrest. This Court, by order dated 12/12/2025, rejected the said contention, and the matter was kept for further hearing on merits. Before the matter could be heard on merits before this Court, the applicant approached the Supreme Court by filing Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2635/2026, wherein the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order passed by this Court and held that “the High Court ought not to have decided the issues raised partially, particularly, when there are other judgments covering the field”. Further, it appears that the applicant again approached the Division Bench of this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 734/2026, raising the same ground, that the grounds of arrest have not been informed to the applicant. However, by order dated 05/10/2026, this Court rejected the Criminal Piyush Mahajan 9 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 Writ Petition filed by the present applicant, and accordingly, the applicant is now raising additional ground to seek bail, i.e., the ground of “delay in trial”. 11. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that, though the applicant was arrested on 28/07/2023, however, it was not brought to my notice by the learned counsel as to whether the applicant is at fault or the prosecution is at fault. Nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate that there is delay in the trial. It is further to be noted that this Court called the status report by order dated 29/09/2025, and accordingly, the status report was received. However, after calling for the status report, one year has passed, and during this period, i.e., after framing of the charge on 16/10/2025, the prosecution has examined as many as 31 witnesses. As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Chauhan, the trial is going regularly and in a speedy manner. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, merely because the applicant was arrested on 28/07/2023, that by itself is not sufficient to grant bail unless and until a case is made out for grant of bail on the ground of “delay in trial”. It is also to be noted that the applicant has not approached the trial Court by raising the said ground. Further, no material Piyush Mahajan 10 21-Cr.BA-199-2025 has been placed on record to demonstrate that it is the prosecution who has failed to conduct the trial in a speedy manner. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the applicant has not made out a case for grant of bail on the said ground. 12. So far as the third ground raised by the applicant, that he has old-aged parents, is concerned, the applicant has not placed anything further on record to demonstrate that there is no one in his family to look after them. Apart from that, the said ground cannot be considered, considering the fact that the present case is a case of cold-blooded and double murder. Under such circumstances, the said ground also cannot be considered. Even there are criminal antecedents against the applicant as there are 3 crimes pending against him, though he is released on bail in those crimes. Hence, the Criminal Application is rejected. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan Signed by: Piyush Ramesh Mahajan Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/10/2026 16:14:14