BA254-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2026 Urkulus s/o Jaldya Kale R/o Kharatwadi, Pimpalgaon Pisa Tq. Shrigonda Dist. Ahmednagar ... Applicant VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Parner Police Station Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar … Respondent Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 20th August, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime No. 526 of 2025 registered with Parner Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was arrested on 2 July 2025. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. His post- charge-sheet application below Exhibit 4 in Sessions Case No. 277 of 2025 was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on 19 January 2026. 2. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that the deceased Pratiksha, aged about 16 years, was the daughter of the first informant Ritesh Bhosale. About a month before the incident, Asmita, the 1 of 8 2026:BHC-AUG:37763 BA254-26 daughter of the co-accused Ashish Bhosale, had died by drowning. Ashish suspected Pratiksha to be responsible for that death. It is alleged that he had thereafter threatened to kill Pratiksha. The present applicant is Ashish's father-in-law. On 1 July 2025, when Pratiksha did not return home, the informant's minor son Shivam disclosed that he had seen Ashish and the present applicant chasing Pratiksha towards the canal/hill side. During the ensuing search, Pratiksha was found lying in the bushes with bleeding injuries on her head. Crime No. 526 of 2025 was consequently registered. 3. The post-mortem material records multiple ante-mortem injuries, including lacerated wounds on the back of the head, a depressed comminuted fracture in the occipital region and laceration of the cerebellum. The probable cause of death is stated to be laceration of the cerebellar hemisphere due to a depressed comminuted fracture of the skull caused by a blow of a hard, blunt and heavy object on the back of the head. The supplementary medical opinion states that the injuries described in columns 17 and 19 could be caused by a stone; that injury Nos. 2 and 3 are grievous; and that the injuries were not possible by an accidental fall. The papers further show seizure from the spot of three stones bearing bloodstains and cotton swabs used for collecting the stained material. The prosecution also relies upon the circumstance that one slipper of the absconding co-accused Ashish was found near the canal and upon call-detail/tower-location material relating to a mobile number standing in the applicant's name. 2 of 8 BA254-26 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no eyewitness to the actual assault and no specific overt act or recovery is attributed to the applicant. The case against him rests principally on the version of Shivam, the 12-year-old brother of the deceased. It was urged that Shivam is a tutored witness and that there are material differences between his first statement and the later statement recorded before the Magistrate, particularly as regards the time and surrounding details of the alleged sighting. Reliance was also placed upon the statement of Pradeep Bhosale, who is stated to have seen the deceased alone on the hill at about 1:30 p.m. on the date of the incident, without seeing the applicant there. 5. The further submission is that the mobile number relied upon by the prosecution, though registered in the applicant's name, was in fact being used by his daughter Usha, the wife of the absconding co- accused. The handset was seized from Usha and not from the applicant. Usha has filed an affidavit stating that the phone was in her possession and use even on the date of the incident. It was therefore submitted that the tower location of that number cannot place the applicant at the spot. The applicant is about 50 years old, resides at Shrigonda, approximately 50 to 60 kilometres away, has no criminal antecedents, has remained in custody since 2 July 2025 and is no longer required for investigation. According to the defence, the applicant has been implicated merely because he is the father-in-law of the absconding co- accused. 3 of 8 BA254-26 6. Learned APP opposed the application. It was submitted that Shivam's two statements are consistent on the central circumstance that he saw both accused chasing the deceased. Though his first statement does not specify the precise time, his later statement places the sighting at about 2:00 p.m. This is said to find support from Pradeep's statement that he had seen the deceased sitting alone on the hill near the canal at about 1:30 p.m. The two accounts, according to the prosecution, place the deceased in the relevant area and the applicant with the co-accused in pursuit of her within a short interval. The variation relied upon by the defence is a matter for cross-examination and cannot be used to discard the child witness at the stage of bail. The medical evidence, the three bloodstained stones and the condition of the spot support a homicidal assault by a hard, blunt and heavy object and rule out an accidental fall. It was further submitted that Ashish is still absconding; the applicant is his father-in-law; and the material witnesses are closely related to the parties. His release would therefore carry a real risk of pressure upon the witnesses and assistance being rendered to the absconding accused. 7. Applying those principles, the homicidal nature of the death is, for present purposes, prima facie evident from the post-mortem material. The victim was a 16-year-old girl and the injuries were concentrated upon the head, including a depressed fracture and laceration of the cerebellum. The medical opinion that the injuries were possible by a stone and were not possible by an accidental fall assumes 4 of 8 BA254-26 relevance when read with the seizure of three bloodstained stones from the spot. The medical papers do not fix the precise time of assault; they indicate that the injuries were sustained within about 24 to 48 hours before the post-mortem. That absence of a medically precise time does not, at the bail stage, sever the prosecution's temporal case if the witness accounts are otherwise read together. The accusation is therefore of exceptional gravity. Gravity alone cannot decide bail, but it supplies the setting in which the nature of the material and the role attributed to the applicant must be assessed. 8. The principal circumstance against the applicant is statements of witness Shivam . The statements presently available may contain a variation in the narration of time and certain surrounding details. However, their core is that Shivam saw the applicant and Ashish chasing Pratiksha towards the canal/hill side, where she was later found dead. Whether the variation is material, whether the witness was tutored, and how much weight his testimony ultimately deserves can be determined only after he is examined and cross-examined. At this stage, a natural witness cannot be discarded merely because he is a minor and the brother of the deceased. To return a definitive finding on his reliability now would be to conduct the very mini-trial which bail jurisdiction forbids. 9. The statement of Pradeep that he saw Pratiksha sitting alone on the hill near the canal at about 1:30 p.m. does not, by itself, demolish the prosecution case. Shivam's later statement places his 5 of 8 BA254-26 sighting of both accused chasing Pratiksha at about 2:00 p.m. prima facie narrates the two statements furnish geographical as well as temporal proximity. Pradeep places the deceased in the relevant area and, about half an hour later, Shivam claims to have seen the two accused chasing her there. The first statement of Shivam may not specify the precise time, but it does not state a time inconsistent with 2:00 p.m.; it records that he informed the relatives later in the evening. Whether the later specification of time is an improvement affecting his credibility is a matter for evidence. At present, Pradeep's statement is capable of co-existing with, and providing context to, Shivam's statement rather than necessarily contradicting it. Its exact effect must be left for trial. 10. The defence concerning the mobile phone does require due notice. The handset was allegedly seized from Usha and her affidavit asserts that she was its actual user, although the subscription stood in the applicant's name. At this stage, without evidence identifying the person who was actually carrying the handset at the material time, the tower-location circumstance cannot be treated as decisive against the applicant. Even if that circumstance is kept aside, however, the prosecution case does not disappear, because Shivam's statement directly places the applicant in the company of the absconding co- accused while chasing the deceased towards the relevant area. 11. It is true that no weapon or other incriminating article is shown to have been recovered from the applicant and that the earlier 6 of 8 BA254-26 threats and the immediate motive are more directly attributed to accused Ashish. Yet the accusation is not founded merely upon relationship. The prosecution attributes to him physical presence and concerted conduct with Ashish immediately preceding the discovery of the deceased. At this stage in present case, the absence of a separate overt act or a recovery from the applicant does not, by itself, neutralise the allegation against the present applicant. 12. The Court has also considered that the applicant has no reported criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed and he has undergone custody since 2 July 2025. These are relevant considerations. The custody so far, however, is not of such extraordinary length, having regard to the charge and the stage of the case, as would eclipse the prima facie material and the risks to the trial. The co-accused Ashish continues to abscond. The applicant is his father-in-law, while Shivam and the other material witnesses belong to the same extended family circle. In this setting, the apprehension of influencing the child witness or facilitating the absconding accused cannot presently be regarded as merely speculative. 13. On an overall assessment, this Court is not satisfied that a case for release on bail is made out at this stage. This conclusion rests on the limited prima facie assessment required for bail and not upon any final determination of the truthfulness, admissibility or weight of the prosecution evidence. 7 of 8 BA254-26 ORDER (1) The Bail Application is rejected. (2) It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the decision of this bail application. The Trial Court shall decide the case on the evidence led before it, uninfluenced by any prima facie observation made herein. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 8 of 8