-1- 939-BA-1159-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1159 OF 2026 DINESH ANANDA CHAUDHARI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...... Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Rani Kailas Agrawal APP for Respondent - State : Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 20th AUGUST 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. The investigation is complete. Charge sheet has been filed and the same is annexed to the present application. I have perused the entire charge sheet with the assistance of both the learned advocates. 3. The present application is filed for regular bail in connection with FIR bearing No. 0911 of 2025, registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Jalgaon for offences punishable under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of BNS. The applicant has been in custody in connection with the above offence since 19th December, 2025. At this juncture, it is also important to note that the co- 2026:BHC-AUG:38766 -2- 939-BA-1159-2026 accused in the present case, namely Bhushan Balu Patil, has been released on bail by this Court by order dated 29th July, 2026. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Nilesh was missing since 15th December, 2025, when he left his house at 6:15 p.m. after informing the informant that he was proceeding to meet the present applicant. However, as the deceased did not return, the informant tried calling his mobile phone, which was continuously switched off. The informant along with the other family members took search of the deceased in the nearby vicinity. However, on that day, he was not found. On 16th December, 2025, the motorcycle on which the deceased had left was found near an agricultural field in village Ramdevwadi. However, as the deceased was not found, the informant registered a missing complaint bearing No.196 of 2025. The informant has also informed the police that the deceased was friends with the present applicant and the other co-accused Bhushan Patil. A dispute had taken place between the present applicant and deceased, of which the informant had knowledge. 4. On 19th December, 2025, the body of deceased Nilesh was recovered from a gunny bag floating in Nevhare Dam. The prosecution alleges that the applicant and accused No.2 had called Nilesh to the field behind the Sankat-mochak Nevhare Maroti -3- 939-BA-1159-2026 temple and there, the deceased was strangulated with a rope. After his death, his dead body was placed in a gunny bag, which was then carried on a motorcycle and and same was thrown in the dam. The post-mortem report records ligature marks associated with neck injuries and a subdural haematoma. The cause of death opined by the doctor is “asphyxia due to ligature strangulation” and the manner of death is stated to be homicidal. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for applicant submitted that the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and that there are no eye-witnesses. Neither there is any material available on record to show that the applicant was last seen together with the deceased Nilesh. She also argued that there is an absolute absence of any incriminating material, including any WhatsApp communication between the deceased and the present applicant. The statement of the deceased's father only records that the deceased, while leaving the house on 15th December, 2025, had informed him that he was going to meet the applicant and does not establish that they actually met. The alleged motive concerning a female co-worker and the money which was transferred to the account of the deceased are not supported by any corroborative piece of evidence, in spite of the fact that the investigation is now complete. -4- 939-BA-1159-2026 6. She also argued that the alleged confessions during the missing enquiry by the police of the present applicant and the co- accused or even the disclosures made by the present applicant during custodial interrogation are inadmissible. She further submitted that the dead body was found at a public place which is accessible to the general public and was found visibly floating in the water in a gunny bag, it was not discovered at the instance of the applicant. She lastly relied upon the order passed by this Court granting bail to the co-accused Bhushan Patil and thus argued that, on the ground of parity and having regard to the applicant's age of 21 years, absence of any antecedents and the custody already undergone since 19th December, 2025, coupled with the fact that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is already filed, the continuation of the applicant's custody is unwarranted. Hence, she submitted that, the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 7. Learned APP opposed the bail application and submitted that there is no dispute that Bhushan Balu Patil has been released on bail, but submitted that the material against the present applicant is distinguishable. The role and involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence are of larger -5- 939-BA-1159-2026 significance as compared to the role of the co-accused Bhushan Balu Patil. While distinguishing the role of the present applicant, she submits that the deceased had specifically taken the name of the present applicant while leaving the house on 15th December, 2025, and furthermore, the dispute which is being referred by the informant is between the deceased and the present applicant. The co-accused Bhushan Balu Patil had no personal enmity with the deceased. Moreover, the learned APP relied upon the statement of Bhushan Balu Patil, who states that on 16th December, 2025, the applicant while appearing tense, personally narrated to this witness that there was a quarrel in the field and due to the said quarrel by making use of a rope, the neck of the deceased was strangulated. Thereafter, his dead body was placed in a gunny bag and after transporting it to the dam, it was disposed of. Even the abandonment of the motorcycle was done by the accused persons. She argues that this amounts to an extrajudicial confession to a private witness and not a confession to a police officer. She further submitted that a rope of almost about 5 feet, which was allegedly used in the commission of the offence, has been recovered at the instance of the present applicant. She also relied upon the statements concerning the attempt of the present applicant along with the co-accused to flee towards Surat by procuring another handset and by giving a false explanation regarding the journey -6- 939-BA-1159-2026 and furthermore, the statements of the witnesses showing that the applicant had been absent from his workplace since 15th December, 2025 are sufficient to establish the conduct of the present applicant and his involvement in commission of the heinous offence. 8. She even placed reliance on the medical evidence by way of post-mortem report and submits that even the medical opinion of homicidal death by ligature strangulation also supports the prosecution case. This also assures the involvement of present applicant as it correlates with his own extrajudicial confession made to a private person. She thus argues that the law of parity cannot be applied in favour of the present applicant and therefore, as there is ample evidence available on record connecting the present applicant in connection with the alleged heinous offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. She further argues that the applicant was arrested on 19th December, 2025 and even the argument that the applicant has been in custody for longer period and there is no possibility of an early trial, cannot be sustained. 9. Taking into consideration the arguments of both the learned Advocates and the material that has been placed on -7- 939-BA-1159-2026 record, one aspect that is not disputed at this stage is the death of the deceased being homicidal death by ligature strangulation. Equally true that, presence of circumstantial evidence and the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance and complete the necessary chain to establish the guilt of the accused persons. For the limited purpose of bail, however, the material is not confined to the deceased stated intention to meet the applicant. The statement of Vishal Patil attributes to the applicant a detailed narration made on the day following the occurrence, regarding the manner in which both accused persons allegedly strangulated deceased Nilesh and disposed of his body and his motorcycle. Its voluntariness, truthfulness and ultimately, its evidentiary worth will have to be tested at the time of trial. It is nevertheless an alleged extrajudicial confession to a private person, and not a confession to a police officer, and cannot be discarded at the threshold at this stage. The conduct of the applicant in allegedly hurriedly departing, giving a false explanation for the journey and his employment related conduct after the occurrence are not a proof of guilt by themselves but are definitely prima facie material which operates as supporting circumstances. 10. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant is -8- 939-BA-1159-2026 right to some extent when she argues that the alleged confession made during police enquiry or custody cannot be used as substantive evidence. The body being already visible in the water, has also not been treated as a discovery made by the applicant. The recovery of the rope stands on a different legal footing, though only to a limited extent. At this stage, the prosecution material discloses that the applicant led the police and the panch witnesses to the place from where a 5 feet rope with a knot was produced. Its admissible extent and evidentiary value remain matters for trial. There is presently no demonstrated forensic match of the rope with the alleged injuries. However, the recovery of the rope can be treated only as a prima facie circumstance consistent with and not as proof of the medical opinion. 11. The most important aspect that this Court needs to consider the fact that the co-accused Bhushan Balu Patil has been released on bail and this requires anxious consideration. The prosecution story and the material no doubt point towards the involvement of both the accused in the alleged offence and they have participated in placing the rope around the neck of deceased and disposing of the body. The record also attributes separate extrajudicial disclosures to each of them through different witnesses. The applicant cannot, therefore, be denied bail merely -9- 939-BA-1159-2026 by describing the accusation as grave nor can he allegedly disclosed by itself constitute a distinguishing feature. The immediate dispute and alleged enmity are attributed to the present applicant, whereas Bhushan Patil is not alleged to have any personal dispute with the deceased. More importantly, the article alleged to be the instrument of strangulation was recovered pursuant to the memorandum of the present applicant. The identity of deceased and the bankbook documents found with Bhushan are incriminating circumstances against him, but their recovery does not erase the distinct material against the applicant. When the alleged motive, recovery, independent disclosure and post-occurrence conduct are read together, this Court is unable to hold that the applicant stands on the same factual footing merely because the ultimate overt act is alleged to have been committed jointly. The plea of parity does not displace the individual assessment required in the application. 12. The charge-sheet has been filed, custodial interrogation is no longer required and the age of the applicant is young. However, taking into consideration the length of custody, it cannot be said that the applicant has been in custody for such a period as would amount to long incarceration. On the cumulative and strictly prima facie assessment, the prosecution has placed material, -10- 939-BA-1159-2026 which establishes the prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. 13. In light of above, the application for bail stands rejected. 14. Needless to say that, the observations made in the present order are prima facie only to the extent of dealing with present application and they shall not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court while conducting the trial. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale