5-REVN-48-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2026 Saurbh Dadya Dnyaneshwar Golesar ...Applicant VERSUS State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Mr.Arpit N. Mutha, for the Applicant. Mr.S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State. ____________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST 2026 P.C. : . The challenge in this Application is to the order dated 7th October 2025, below Exhibit-20, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road, Nashik framed charge against the Applicant in Sessions Case No.232 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short). 2. It is prosecution’s case that on 8th August 2021, the sister of First Informant was found dead in her house. It is alleged that the Applicant and co-accused murdered her. 3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the main allegations are against the Accused No.1. The only allegation against the Applicant is that while crime was being committed by Accused No.1, the NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.08.25 14:39:29 +0530 5-REVN-48-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble Applicant was standing outside the house of the deceased and thereafter they left the place after locking the deceased in the house. Except this allegation, there are no allegations against the Applicant. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no statement of witness recorded to show that the Applicant was present at the time of the incident. On the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. If trial is continued against the Applicant, it would amount to abuse of process of law and requested to allow the Application. 5. It is contention of the learned APP that sister of First Informant was murdered by Accused No.1. At the time of the incident, the Applicant was with accused No.1. He stood outside the house of the deceased, whereas Accused No.1 committed murder of the deceased. It shows involvement of the Applicant in the crime. There is prima facie case against the Applicant. To prove the innocence of the Applicant, trial is required. The charge has been framed against the Applicant and requested to reject the Application. 6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused documents produced on record. 7. The allegations against the Applicant are that he was present with 5-REVN-48-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble the co-accused at the time of the murder and was standing outside the house of the deceased. The Applicant has been falsely roped in the present crime on the basis of statement of the co-accused. There is no statement of any witness to show that the Applicant was standing outside the house of the deceased. There are no call records produced on record to show communication between the Applicant and co-accused. Nothing is produced on record to connect the Applicant with the crime. There is no sufficient evidence to involve the Applicant for the alleged offence. If trial is continued against the Applicant, it would amount to abuse of process of law. There is no case at all against the Applicant, hence I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Application is allowed. (ii) The order of framing charge dated 7th October 2025, below Exhibit-20, against the Applicant in Sessions Case No.232 of 2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road, Nashik, is quashed and set aside. (iii) The Applicant is discharged in Sessions Case No.232 of 2025. (iv) All pending Applications are disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)