Order 040926ba976.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 976 OF 2026. Gitesh Vasantrao Satpute -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri S.V. Manohar, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri A.B. Badar, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, 2026. Heard. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.374/2026 registered with Warora Police Station, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 103[1], 109[1], 189[4], 190, 191[3], 192, 324[5] and 126[2] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Charge sheet came to be filed and Sections 249[b], 49, 351[4], 238, 61[2] of the BNS came to be added. 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:11782 Order 040926ba976.26 2 Pankaj Wankhade, alleging that the accused persons had procured the tender of excavation of sand in government auction and he had purchased the same from the applicant for an amount of Rs.2.5 Crores. Though the permission was till 09.06.2026, the applicant took back the said sand ghat from the informant on 25.01.2026 and for the remaining period agreed to pay an amount of Rs.98,64,621/- by 28.02.2026. However, the amount was not paid, and instead the informant and other partners were assaulted with the help of sword, in which one person died. Hence, the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he received the contract of excavation of sand, which was sub- let to a group of persons for Rs.2.5 Crores, however, there was some dispute, therefore, the oral agreement between the parties was cancelled and it was agreed that the applicant would return Rs.98,64,621/- to other party before 28.02.2026. The learned Counsel further submits that accordingly Rs.23 lakhs were returned to other party, however, still substantial amount remained to be returned, therefore, he entered into an oral agreement with third party in respect of Rgd. Order 040926ba976.26 3 the same site, however, as the amount was not returned by the applicant to the second party, they went to the spot on 01.03.2026 along with group of persons, and created ruckus. The contract was sub-let to third party, the second party burnt vehicles of third party due to which quarrel took place, and in the said incident one person from the second party lost his life, therefore, the first information report was lodged by the informant against the applicant and group of persons from third party. The learned Counsel further submits that neither the applicant was present on the spot, nor he is concerned with the quarrel which took place on 01.03.2026. 5. It is further submitted that it is the second party who was aggressor and created ruckus on the spot, due to which there was a fight between the second and third party in which one person namely Bharat Nagpal died, who belongs to second party. Admittedly in the entire charge sheet there are no allegations that the applicant was present on the spot, however, according to the applicant he was implicated on the allegations of hatching conspiracy. He submits that had it been a case of hatching conspiracy, then under those Rgd. Order 040926ba976.26 4 circumstances, the offence committed would not have taken place and it might have taken place against a specific individual, however, considering the contents of the first information report it could be gathered that it is the fight between second and third party, and applicant is no way concerned with the same, even there is no material in the charge sheet in respect of hatching conspiracy by the applicant. Therefore, in absence of such material, the applicant cannot be connected with the alleged crime. He submits that no doubt some amount remained to be paid to the second party by the applicant, however, that by itself is not sufficient to connect him with the murder of deceased Bharat. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is suffering from cancer since 2019 and since the date of his arrest he is admitted in the hospital for near about 95% time of his total incarceration. Therefore, even on medical ground, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. Lastly he submits that considering the nature of allegations against the applicant, he deserves to be released on bail. 6. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. vehemently Rgd. Order 040926ba976.26 5 opposed the application by stating that it is the applicant who is responsible for the murder of Bharat. He submits that the investigating agency has collected sufficient material against the applicant. My attention is invited to the statement of witness namely Mayur, who belong to second party, and submits that a call was received by Mayur from the applicant, when they were on the spot, and the witness has stated that “तेथे आम्ही थे बून असते का ही .वेळा न मला म झे मबू इलाला का.९९२३४२४६७२ वेर गि रश स तेपु#ते यां चे मबू ईला का. ९९२२७७५५३६ वेरून वेळा ०६/५३ वे . फोन आला वे तेव्ही गि रश स तेपु#ते मला म्हीणा ला का-, ते पुणा घा टा ते आला का ? बूघाते म, ठीका आही, अस बूलान फोन काटा काला .”, therefore, this fact itself is sufficient to connect the applicant with the crime. Further he submitted that there are also calls from the applicant to co- accused Amol Kamdi at about 7.22 p.m. also there is a call from Kamdi to the applicant at about 6.47 p.m. In such circumstances, the said Kamdi, who is third party and had subsequently entered into an agreement between the applicant, even this fact is sufficient to connect the applicant with the present crime, therefore, it is submitted that Rgd. Order 040926ba976.26 6 considering the seriousness of the crime, the applicant does not deserves to be released on bail. 7. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties. After perusal of the first information report and relevant records, it reveals that initially the applicant had entered into an agreement with the second party for Rs.2.5 Crores. It further appears that there was some dispute between them due to which it was agreed between them that after deducting amount of excavation done by the second party, the remaining amount i.e. Rs.94,64,621/- would be returned. It further appears that Rs.23 lakhs were returned to the second party by the applicant, however, rest of the amount could not be returned on time and therefore, on 01.03.2026, second party went to the spot of incident. In the meanwhile, it appears that applicant has entered into a second agreement with the third party, who at the relevant time i.e. 01.03.2026 were excavating the sand from the ghat. There was a fight between the second party and third party which resulted into death of one Bharat Nagpal. So far as the role of applicant is concerned, admittedly it appears that he was not present on Rgd. Order 040926ba976.26 7 the spot. It is further to be noted that after considering the statement of one of the witness Mayur, it shows that a call was received by him at about 6.53 p.m. when the second party was on the spot. It is further to be noted that there is another call from the person of third party at about 7.22 p.m. to Kamdi. Apart from that I do not find any other material against the applicant. Had it been the case of hatching conspiracy by the applicant, then things would have been different. The manner in which the incident dated 01.03.2026 occurred, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said to be an act of conspiracy, though there are allegations as regards the same against the applicant. 8. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is suffering from cancer since 2019 and still he is taking treatment in the hospital. The learned A.P.P. was called to ascertain this fact, and accordingly, on instructions he states that it is true that applicant is taking treatment at Cancer Hospital, and at present he is admitted. Therefore, considering the case of applicant on merits and on medical grounds, I am inclined to grant him bail. Hence, the Rgd. Order 040926ba976.26 8 following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant /accused Gitesh Vasantrao Satpute be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.374/2026 registered with Warora Police Station, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 103[1], 109[1], 189[4], 190, 191[3], 192, 324[5], 126[2], 249[b], 49, 351[4], 238 and 61[2] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. (iii) The accused shall not enter within the territorial jurisdiction where the informant is residing, till the completion of the trial. (iv) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (v) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. Rgd. Order 040926ba976.26 9 (vi) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for one single date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. (vii) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial. (viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 07/09/2026 16:33:10