-1- 954-BA-1560-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1560 OF 2026 DHARAMSING REHANJYA KHARDE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Abhay M. Taksal a/w Mr. Gautam J. Pahilwan APP for Respondent - State : Mr. S.A. Gaikwad ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 9th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.01 of 2026 registered with Mhaswad Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is accused No.1. He was arrested on 3rd January, 2026 and is in custody since then. Investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed. His earlier application for bail came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada on 13th May, 2026. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Vinod Popat Patale was the son-in-law of the applicant and was residing 2026:BHC-AUG:42037 -2- 954-BA-1560-2026 with his wife and children at the house of the applicant at village Tulaja. On 30th December, 2025, Vinod was found dead in the sugarcane field of Deepak Navalsing Girase at Bhute Akaspur. Initially an accidental death was registered. After post-mortem, the medical officer opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. The FIR was thereafter lodged on 2nd January 2026 against an unknown person for an unknown reason. 3. According to the prosecution, the applicant and the deceased had a dispute in relation to purchase of a white Force Cruiser vehicle. It is alleged that the deceased had financially contributed towards the vehicle, whereas the vehicle came to be registered in the name of another son-in-law, co-accused Sanjay Ratansingh Patale. This is projected as the motive for the offence. The prosecution further relies principally upon the statement of Ramesh Gujrya Vasave, who claims that during the relevant night he saw the applicant, his wife, his son Sambarsing and son-in-law Sanjay near a white Cruiser vehicle in the vicinity of a nala and that the applicant asked him to leave the place. The prosecution seeks to connect this circumstance with the subsequent discovery of the dead body in the sugarcane field. The learned Sessions Judge principally relied upon this circumstance and the alleged motive while rejecting bail. -3- 954-BA-1560-2026 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eyewitness to the assault and that the entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The FIR admittedly names no accused. There is no recovery or discovery at the instance of the present applicant. It is submitted that the statement of Ramesh was recorded subsequently and his version is itself doubtful. Though Ramesh claimed to have seen the accused together, he failed to identify accused No.3 in the test identification parade. Insofar as the applicant is concerned, Ramesh already knew him, both being residents of the same locality, and therefore the identification of the applicant in a test identification parade does not add any substantive circumstance. 5. Learned counsel further relies upon the statement of Jamuna, wife of the deceased and daughter of the applicant. It is submitted that her statement materially cuts across the prosecution version regarding the applicant's presence near the nala. She states that during the night, when her husband had not returned, she took the mobile phone of her father from the place where he was sleeping and attempted to call the deceased. On the following morning she asked both her father and brother about her husband and they thereafter went in search of him. It is also pointed out that the forensic examination of the crime scene -4- 954-BA-1560-2026 yielded no potential exhibit connecting the applicant with the offence. The applicant is about 68 years of age, has no criminal antecedents, investigation is complete and no further custodial interrogation is required. Accused No.3 Sanjay has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 7th July 2026. 6. Learned APP opposes the application. It is submitted that the death is clearly homicidal, the medical opinion being that the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by throttling. Ramesh had seen the applicant and the other accused near the white Cruiser vehicle at about 3.00 a.m. in suspicious circumstances. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and the deceased was residing in his house. The dispute concerning the purchase and registration of the Cruiser provides motive. According to the prosecution, the accused initially intended to dispose of the body near the nala but, after being noticed by Ramesh, carried it further and dumped it in the sugarcane field. Considering the gravity of the offence and the possibility of influencing witnesses, the application is sought to be rejected. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the charge-sheet. There can be little dispute at this stage that the death of Vinod was homicidal. The medical material indicates death due to asphyxia consequent to throttling. That circumstance, -5- 954-BA-1560-2026 however, establishes the nature of death; it does not, by itself, identify the assailant. The question at the stage of bail is whether the material collected during investigation provides reasonable prima facie grounds connecting the present applicant with the homicidal act or with a common design to commit the offence. 8. The Supreme Court has reiterated in case of State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh reported in (2025) 11 SCC 799 that while deciding bail the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record findings which may prejudice the trial. At the same time, particularly in a serious offence, the Court must examine the material collected during investigation and ascertain whether there exists a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe in the involvement of the accused. The nature of accusation, gravity of the offence, role attributed to the accused, antecedents, possibility of tampering, likelihood of absconding and the overall necessity of continued detention are relevant considerations. In case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, it was held that, equally, merely describing a prosecution case as one resting upon circumstantial evidence cannot by itself constitute a ground for bail if the circumstances collected during investigation prima facie form a complete chain. -6- 954-BA-1560-2026 9. Tested on these parameters, the prosecution material against the present applicant requires closer scrutiny. The FIR was registered against an unknown person and did not express any suspicion against the applicant. This circumstance is not by itself decisive, since the identity of an offender may legitimately emerge during investigation. What assumes significance, however, is the nature of the material by which the applicant was subsequently connected with the offence. The principal incriminating circumstance is the statement of Ramesh Vasave that he saw the applicant and the other accused near a white Cruiser vehicle during the night. 10. At this stage, the statement of Ramesh cannot simply be discarded. Nevertheless, its evidentiary value must be viewed together with the remaining circumstances. Ramesh does not claim to have witnessed the assault upon the deceased. Nor does he state that he saw the deceased in the vehicle or that he saw the accused carrying or disposing of the dead body. His version, therefore, at its highest, places the applicant in suspicious circumstances near a vehicle at an unusual hour. The further prosecution theory is that the accused were then transporting the dead body and, upon being noticed, altered their intended place of disposal is inferential. Prima facie, the charge-sheet does not disclose any direct -7- 954-BA-1560-2026 circumstance witnessed by Ramesh establishing such transportation or disposal by the applicant. 11. There is another circumstance which cannot be ignored at the bail stage. Jamuna, the wife of the deceased, was admittedly staying in the same house. Her statement records that during the night, when she found that her husband had not returned, she took her father's mobile phone from the place where he was sleeping and attempted to contact her husband. On the following morning, she asked her father and brother about the deceased and they went out to search for him. This part of her statement prima facie stands in tension with the prosecution's assertion that the applicant was outside near the nala at the relevant time. Which of these versions ultimately deserves acceptance is plainly a matter for trial. At the bail stage, however, the existence of such material emanating from the wife of the deceased herself is relevant while assessing the strength and continuity of the circumstantial chain. 12. The alleged motive also does not, at this stage, substantially strengthen the prosecution case against the applicant. The statement of the jeweller shows financial dealings concerning ornaments and money for purchase of a four-wheeler. It also records that when Vinod and Jamuna subsequently came with money, the applicant instructed the jeweller to return the -8- 954-BA-1560-2026 pledged ornaments to them. The further assertion in that statement that the murder occurred because the vehicle had been registered in the name of the other son-in-law is information which the witness states he learnt from the police; it is not a fact within his personal knowledge. Thus, while the vehicle transaction may furnish a background circumstance, the material presently shown does not permit the alleged motive to be treated as so compelling as to bridge the other gaps in the prosecution case. 13. It is also significant that there is no recovery or discovery attributable to the present applicant. The forensic crime-scene examination records that no potential exhibit was found at the crime scene. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. The material objects and the vehicle relied upon by the prosecution have already been secured. The applicant is stated to be 68 years old and no antecedents are pointed out. Consequently, his continued custody is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. 14. The fact that accused No.3 Sanjay has been released on bail is an additional circumstance, though parity cannot be applied mechanically and the role of each accused must be independently examined. Even independently of parity, however, the material discussed above persuades me that continued pre-trial -9- 954-BA-1560-2026 incarceration of the present applicant is not warranted. The seriousness of the accusation is undoubtedly substantial, but gravity cannot substitute for examination of the prima facie material connecting a particular accused with the offence. 15. These observations are confined to the consideration of the present bail application. The prosecution must have full opportunity to establish the circumstances relied upon by it at trial, and nothing observed herein shall be construed as a final opinion regarding the credibility of Ramesh, Jamuna or any other witness, or regarding the existence or otherwise of the alleged motive. 16. In the circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant – Dharamsing s/o Rehanjya Kharde, in connection with Crime No.1 of 2026 registered with Mhaswad Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, shall be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any -10- 954-BA-1560-2026 inducement, threat or promise to any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (iv) Considering that the principal witnesses are from the same village/locality and some of them are related to the applicant, the applicant shall not enter village Tulaja, Taluka Taloda, District Nandurbar, except for attending the trial, for a period of six months from his release, without prior permission of the trial Court. He shall furnish to the Investigating Officer and the trial Court the address at which he will reside during the said period and shall not change the same without prior intimation. (v) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly unless exempted by the trial Court and shall cooperate with its expeditious conclusion. (vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the trial Court and shall surrender his passport, if any, before the trial Court. (vii) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. (viii) It is clarified that the observations made in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this Bail Application. The trial Court shall decide the case independently and uninfluenced by these observations. (ix) Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale