IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 963 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1469 OF 2026 Samadhan Suryakant Barve VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ... Mr. Salunke Sudarshan J, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondents-State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 27th August, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. By this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant, who is the original accused no.1 in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2025, arrested in connection with Crime No.0174 of 2025, dated 11.06.2025, registered with Sonpeth Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 49, 35, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeks regular bail. 2. The prosecution’s story, in brief, is that there has been longstanding family dispute between the family of the present applicant and the family of the deceased on account of ancestral property. On the date of incident i.e. 10.06.2025, the said family dispute was resolved amicably between the family members in a meeting which was held on the same day in the afternoon. It is alleged that after the dispute was resolved, the family members amicably mingled with each others and on account of the settlement, the present applicant, along 1 of 8 2026:BHC-AUG:38730 with co-accused Datta, took the deceased to their agricultural field for celebrating the settlement. It is alleged that the informant, when visited the house of the deceased and enquired with the deceased’s mother as to where the deceased has been, the mother informed that as the longstanding family dispute has been resolved, the deceased has gone along-with the present applicant and co-accused Datta to the agricultural field. The prosecution further alleges that after reaching the agricultural field, the trio have consumed liquor by visiting the nearby Bar and Restaurant and have come back to the agricultural field. The prosecution, during the investigation, have come across CCTV cameras of the Restaurant, wherein it is found that at around 4.30 p.m, the present applicant with co-accused Datta had again visited the Bar and Restaurant and purchased a bottle of liquor and have left. The prosecution, thus, alleges that when the deceased was in company of the present applicant and co-accused Datta, he came to be assaulted by knife on his neck and subsequently, the present applicant along-with co-accused Datta have committed murder of the deceased. The prosecution, thus, have alleged that commission of the aforesaid offence against the present applicant and co-accused Data and six other persons. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that out of the total eight persons, all the other accused are released on either regular bail or anticipatory bail. He further argues that the case of the present applicant is at par with the co-accused Datta and 2 of 8 therefore, the present application for bail is mainly pressed on the ground of parity. He further submits that, it is the case of the prosecution that, on the day of incident, the deceased was accompanied with the present applicant as well as co-accused Datta and when both of them were in company of deceased, the deceased has been murdered. There is no direct evidence available on record to support this prosecution theory. He submits that placing reliance on the CCTV footage itself transpires that the deceased was not in the company of the present applicant and co-accused Datta when they were seen in the CCTV footage at the Restaurant. In absence of any direct evidence, it is absolutely not possible to distinguish the role of the present applicant with the role of the co-accused Datta. He further submits that save and except the circumstance of recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of the present applicant, the entire prosecution investigation as well as the material collected against the present applicant and the co-accused is one and the same. He thereafter submitted that the present applicant also have criminal accidents in which three offences are registered against him and pending which are absent as against the co-accused Datta. He, however, argues that the presence of criminal antecedents cannot accelerate the case of the prosecution to conclusively show that the present applicant is responsible for commissioning the murder of the deceased In such situation, he prays that the applicant has made out the ground for grant of bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused Datta. 3 of 8 4. On the contrary, the learned APP argues that the alleged offence is grave and heinous in which, the present applicant has hatched the conspiracy with the other co-accused persons to make a farce in front of the entire family of the deceased that the dispute is settled and then take the deceased to the agricultural field and after making him consume liquor, commit the murder. There is material available on record that the deceased was last seen in the company of the present applicant. The statement of one Sushilabai confirms the fact that even after 4.30’s incident of visiting the Bar and Restaurant in absence of the deceased, all three of them were found to be sitting in the agricultural field. The witness claims that she has actually spoken to the accused persons and deceased when she requested the deceased to come home. This substantiates that prior to the death of the deceased, the applicant and the other co-accused were in company of the deceased. He further argues that the recovery of knife, the weapon which was used for commissioning of the murder, has been recovered at the instance of the present applicant. Even the blood stained clothes of the applicant recovered at his instance are also important piece of evidence to show that involvement of the applicant in the commissioning of the offence. In addition to this, he submits that the applicant is habitual offender and therefore, there are three criminal antecedents are pending against him, of which all the offence are bodily injuries. He further submits that the bail order of this court granting bail to Datta is based on factually incorrect observation, wherein, the court has observed that the post 3.30 pm, the accused 4 of 8 and deceased was not known to be in company of the present applicant and the co-accused Datta. He, thus, submits that taking into consideration the higher role played by the present applicant, recovery of knife at the instance of the present applicant, criminal antecedents against the present applicant, the applicant does not deserve to be released bail and hence, the application be rejected. 5. I have heard both the advocate and have also perused the entire material on record by way of charge-sheet. The prosecution story, in clear terms, has made out the case at least by conducing an investigation to prima facie satisfy this court that the present applicant and the other co-accused have proceeded along-with the deceased to the agricultural field and subsequently thereafter have consumed liquor together. The material on record also indicates that after the settlement meeting between the families was concluded, the present applicant, co-accused Datta and the deceased, after proceeding to the agricultural field at around 3.00 p.m., were together till 5.30 p.m. on 10.06.2025. The material also indicates that when all three of them were together, they had consumed liquor in the agricultural field. The prosecution has also sufficiently brought on record that the dead body of the deceased was found by the witnesses between 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. on the same day. Thus, taking into consideration the proximity of the material available on record to indicate the deceased in company of the present applicant and co-accused Datta till the dead body of the deceased is recovered is very close and therefore, at the time when the 5 of 8 offence is committed, it is prima facie evident that all three of them were together. Even if this material has been placed on record, the fact still remains as to who actually have inflicted the assault of knife on the neck. There is absolutely no material on record to show that there was any prior conspiracy between the accused persons to commit the alleged offence by making a farce of holding the settlement meeting between the families and thereafter, under the pretext of celebrating the settlement, to take the deceased to an agricultural field, make him consume liquor and thereafter commit his murder. In absence of any such material, it cannot be said that there was any conspiracy between the accused persons for commissioning offence as alleged. One more important aspect that requires to be considered in the present case, on the basis of the prosecution material itself, is that whether the incident of assault has taken place on account of any sudden quarrel or on a spur of the moment or whether there was any separate conspiracy between accused no.1 i.e. present applicant and accused no.2. Thus, in absence of this material as well, it is difficult to rope in the present applicant and to hold him responsible for commissioning the murder of the deceased. 6. This court is conscious that the matter is yet to be taken up for trial and the circumstantial evidence will have to be proved by the provision after leading evidence. However, prima facie, taking into consideration the material of prosecution after investigation is complete and coupled with the fact that the co-accused, who is similarly placed 6 of 8 to that of the present applicant, is already released on bail, I am inclined to grant the present application and release the present applicant on bail on the ground of parity with co accused Datta. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, following order is passed: ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) Applicant Samadhan Suryakant Barve shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.0174 of 2025, dated 11.06.2025, registered with Sonpeth Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 49, 35, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing a personal recognizance bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, induce, threaten or influence any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the trial Court. (v) The applicant shall submit his Adhar and Pan Card to the Investigating Officer and detailed address and phone numbers of the applicant and two of the near relatives. 7 of 8 (vi) Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to the extent of this application and the trial court shall not be influenced by the same. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 8 of 8