1 953ba1114.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 953 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1114 OF 2026 TEJAS UMESH MORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chormal Ajit B. APP for Respondents/State : Mr.S.V. Hange ... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE : 19.08.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in connection with the Crime No. 64 of 2023 dated 30.01.2023 registered with Shrirampur Taluka Police Station, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been arrested in pursuance of the FIR for the purpose of investigation but when the FIR was registered on 30.01.2023 he was already arrested and subsequently on 21.03.2023, he was released on bail. He submits that during the trial proceeding the 2 953ba1114.26 applicant was unable to appear before the trial Court and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur had issued a Non Bailable Warrant against the present applicant. He further argues that there is another offence which came to be registered against the present applicant on 02.11.2024 and in relation to the 2nd offence the applicant came to be arrested on 29.09.2025. He was released on bail only on 27.01.2026. He, thus, submits that the date on which the learned trial Court has issued Non Bailable Warrant, the applicant was already in custody in connection with the 2nd offence, and therefore, he was unable to appear and attend the proceedings. He submits that the applicant will co-operate with the trial Court and will attend on each and every dates of hearing before the trial Court. He prays for release of the applicant on bail. 4. The learned APP submits that though it cannot be a dispute that on 20.10.2025 when the Non Bailable Warrant was issued by the trial Court the applicant was in custody in connection with the 2nd FIR and the reason for issuance of the Non Bailable Warrant was not singular absence of the applicant but the applicant was not attending the Court proceedings from August, 2024. Thus, he submits that the due to continue absence of the applicant, the trial Court was constrained to issue Non Bailable Warrant. He, therefore, submits that in order to secure the presence of the applicant was for the speedy conclusion of the trial. The applicant be continued in custody as there is every likelihood 3 953ba1114.26 that he will again default his appearance before the learned trial Court for conclusion of trial. He, therefore, prays that the application be rejected. 5. I have heard both the learned Advocates as well as I have also perused the order passed by the learned trial Court. No doubt, the learned trial Court has rejected the application by specifically observing that the applicant has been absent in the proceedings even before the registration of the 2nd FIR, and therefore, merely because on date of issuance of Non Bailable Warrant the applicant was in custody, cannot be a ground that can be taken into consideration. The trial Court also observed that pending trial, when the applicant was released on bail the applicant had indulged himself in committing another offence and thus the pendency of the application by remaining absent and also committing another offence has been taken into consideration. No doubt, the conduct of the applicant is unpardonable, therefore, the applicant has already been re-arrested and has been languishing in the custody since for more than six months. Though, the learned trial Court in its order dated 26.11.2025 has stated that the case can be disposed of in next few months. The learned APP on instructions submits that in the said trial only charges have been framed and there has been no further progress in the trial. Thus, if the trial is not sufficiently progressed since last nine months, then I do not find any reason as to why the applicant should be continued in custody. The apprehension that has been raised 4 953ba1114.26 by the learned APP can be taken care by imposing stringent conditions on the applicant, hence the following order : ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicants shall be released on bail in Crime No. 64 of 2023 dated 30.01.2023 registered with Shrirampur Taluka Police Station, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : (a) The applicant shall attend each and every date before the trial Court and in case for some bonafide reason the applicant is unable to attend the Court proceedings then appropriate exemption application be preferred, which will be decided by the trial Court on its own merits. (b) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (c) In case the applicant indulges himself and remaining absent before the trial Court or even if the applicant kept involved in any other offence during the pendency of the trial, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this order. (d) The applicant shall furnish his 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. 5 953ba1114.26 (e) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if he possess passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of his release. (f) The applicant shall not involve himself 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. (h) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (i) The application is disposed of. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) mahajansb/