RB923-1612-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1612 OF 2026 1. Mogaraben W/O Ajitbhai Valvi Age 41 years, Occcu: Household R/o Amoda Tq. Kukaramunda Dist. Tapi (Gujrat) 2. Kantilal s/o Dashrath Padvi Age 50 years, Occu: Agri R/o Shelwai Tq. Taloda Dist. Nandurbar ... Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through P.I. Taloda Police Station Tq. Taloda Dist. Ahmednagar … Respondent Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the Respondent State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 8th September, 2026 O R D E R:- 1. The applicants seek their release on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.173 of 2026 registered with Taloda Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Both the applicants were arrested on 28 March 2026. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed on 17 June 2026. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that deceased Kantilal 1 of 10 2026:BHC-AUG:41572 RB923-1612-26 Motiram Valvi left his house on 25 March 2026 on his motorcycle stating that he was going to meet an Advocate at Nizar. As he did not return, search was undertaken. On the following day, his motorcycle was noticed near an agricultural field and his dead body was subsequently found in the agricultural field. The medical material indicates that the deceased had sustained injuries and that the death was homicidal, caused by strangulation. 3. The First Information Report dated 26th March 2026 was initially registered against unknown persons. During investigation, a supplementary statement of the informant came to be recorded, and the present applicants were implicated. According to the prosecution, the deceased was repeatedly telephoning applicant No.1 and was insisting upon maintaining relations with her and threatening that, in the event of her refusal, he would disclose their alleged relationship to her husband and children. It is alleged that applicant No.1, on account of such harassment, conspired with applicant No.2 and, on the night of 25th March 2026, the deceased was called to the relevant place, assaulted and strangulated. The prosecution further alleges that mobile phones used by the deceased and applicant No.1 were thereafter thrown into the Tapi river for causing disappearance of evidence. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence and that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is submitted that the FIR was initially against unknown persons and the applicants came to be implicated 2 of 10 RB923-1612-26 subsequently. According to him, although the prosecution relies upon certain telephone calls between applicant No.1 and the deceased, the CDR material at the highest indicates telephonic contact and does not establish that the applicants and the deceased were together at the place and time of occurrence. 5. Learned Advocate further submits that the prosecution describes certain mobile numbers as secret numbers allegedly used by applicant No.1 and the deceased, but the mobile instruments themselves have not been recovered. The broken pieces of a SIM card are stated to have been recovered at the instance of applicant No.1; however, according to the applicants, there is no material establishing that those pieces pertained to the SIM card of the particular number allegedly used for communication between applicant No.1 and the deceased. 6. It is further submitted that a beer bottle was shown to have been recovered from the roadside at the instance of applicant No.1. A stone was found at the spot, but no blood stains were detected upon it. The clothes of both applicants were also seized, but no blood stains were found thereon. The rope or string allegedly connected with strangulation was found at the scene and was not recovered from either applicant. According to learned Advocate, none of these circumstances individually or cumulatively completes a prima facie chain connecting the applicants with the homicidal death. 3 of 10 RB923-1612-26 7. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, it is submitted that the prosecution relies upon the circumstance of purchase of liquor and recovery of a motorcycle. It is contended that there is no CDR or other technical material sufficiently establishing that applicant No.2 was present with applicant No.1 and the deceased at the place of occurrence at the material time. It is therefore urged that his implication is even more remote. 8. Learned APP opposed the application. He submits that the prosecution has brought on record sufficient circumstances which, when considered cumulatively, establish a strong prima facie case. He relies upon the statements of Devendra Valvi, Kisan Bhagat Singh Valvi and other witnesses to contend that applicant No.1 had complained about the deceased repeatedly telephoning and harassing her. These statements, according to the prosecution, corroborate the motive attributed to applicant No.1. 9. Learned APP further relies upon the telephone records showing frequent calls between applicant No.1 and the deceased, including communication proximate to the date of occurrence. He submits that the location material, recovery of the broken SIM pieces at the instance of applicant No.1, recovery of the beer bottle, purchase of liquor attributed to applicant No.2 and recovery of the motorcycle constitute interconnected circumstances which cannot be viewed in isolation. He points out that the post-mortem examination establishes death by strangulation and that a rope/string was recovered from the 4 of 10 RB923-1612-26 place of occurrence. Considering the gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation, he seeks rejection of the application. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the investigation papers. There can be little dispute at this stage that the death was homicidal. The question, however, is whether the material presently collected creates a sufficiently strong prima facie nexus between these applicants and the homicidal act so as to justify their continued incarceration pending trial. 11. It is equally necessary to bear in mind that the prosecution case is one of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence cannot be discarded at the stage of bail merely because there is no eyewitness. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan & Ors., 2025 INSC 979, has reiterated that strong prima facie circumstantial and scientific material, particularly in a prosecution for murder, is required to be duly considered even at the stage of bail. At the same time, the exercise at this stage cannot be converted into a trial or a final adjudication upon the evidentiary value of each circumstance. 12. Tested on this principle, the prosecution does place some material indicating a motive insofar as applicant No.1 is concerned. Statements of certain witnesses indicate that applicant No.1 had complained that the deceased was repeatedly contacting and troubling her. There is also material regarding telephonic communication 5 of 10 RB923-1612-26 between applicant No.1 and the deceased. These circumstances cannot be ignored. 13. Motive and telephonic contact, however, are not by themselves sufficient in the facts of the present case. What assumes significance is whether there is material connecting the applicants to the actual occurrence during the relevant period. During the hearing, the prosecution was called upon to indicate whether the location records showed applicant No.1 and the deceased to be together at about the material time. The material shown does not, at least prima facie, establish such a precise location. Tower-location evidence necessarily requires cautious appreciation, particularly where persons reside or move within adjoining villages covered by the relevant towers. There is presently no material shown which places both applicants and the deceased together at the precise place of occurrence at the relevant time. 14. There is also no circumstance of last seen together. No witness states that the deceased was seen proceeding with or in the company of either applicant immediately before his death. The prosecution theory as to how applicant No.1 contacted applicant No.2, how the two thereafter travelled together and how the deceased was called to the place of occurrence is substantially sought to be reconstructed from the investigation material. At the stage of bail, the Court is required to see whether that reconstruction has adequate independent support. 6 of 10 RB923-1612-26 15. The recoveries also require to be considered in their proper perspective. The prosecution relies upon broken pieces of a SIM card stated to have been discovered at the instance of applicant No.1. However, the material presently shown does not satisfactorily establish that the broken SIM was the very SIM corresponding to the secret mobile number upon which the prosecution relies. The two mobile phones which, according to the prosecution, were thrown into the river have not been recovered. 16. A beer bottle has been shown as discovered at the instance of applicant No.1 and there is material indicating consumption of liquor by the deceased. That circumstance may form a link for consideration at trial. Nevertheless, the bottle by itself does not establish participation of either applicant in the homicidal act. 17. A stone was found at the spot. Admittedly, no blood stain was detected on it. The clothes of both applicants were seized; no blood stains connecting them with the deceased were found thereon. The rope/string relied upon by the prosecution was found at the place of occurrence and not pursuant to a discovery from either applicant. Though the medical evidence establishes strangulation, the recovery of a rope from the scene establishes the manner of death rather than, without something more, the identity of the assailants. 18. The statement of the witness relied upon by the prosecution regarding purchase of liquor by applicant No.2 undoubtedly constitutes 7 of 10 RB923-1612-26 a circumstance against him. The motorcycle is also relied upon. But even if these circumstances are accepted at their face value at this stage, there remains a material gap between purchase of liquor or use of the motorcycle and participation in the murder. No forensic material has been pointed out which connects applicant No.2 with the body, the scene or the alleged instrument of strangulation. 19. Another circumstance which requires notice is the statement of Jayshree Valvi. Her statement indicates that she herself was in telephonic contact with the deceased on the date of the incident and claims to have been in a relationship with him. The evidentiary effect of that statement is a matter for trial. It is not necessary to draw any conclusion from it at this stage. It nevertheless demonstrates why the circumstance of telephonic communication with the deceased, standing alone, cannot be treated as determinative of participation in the homicide. 20. The Court is conscious that at the stage of bail the prosecution is not required to establish a complete chain in the manner required for conviction after trial. Nor would it be permissible to undertake a meticulous dissection of the evidence. Nevertheless, even for formation of a prima facie view, the circumstances must possess sufficient proximity to the alleged act. The existence of motive, repeated telephone calls and some recoveries undoubtedly creates suspicion against applicant No.1. The material against applicant No.2 is comparatively weaker. Suspicion, even where substantial, must be 8 of 10 RB923-1612-26 distinguished from a prima facie evidentiary nexus justifying prolonged pre-trial detention. In the present case, the clothes of the applicants and the stone do not bear blood stains connecting them to the deceased, and the mobile phones which form an important component of the prosecution theory have not been recovered. 21. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. The applicants have remained in custody since 28th March 2026. Their further custodial interrogation is therefore not required. No criminal antecedents have been pointed out. The apprehension of influencing witnesses or interfering with the trial can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. 22. The observations made herein are confined to consideration of the present bail application and are prima facie in nature. The learned Trial Court shall decide the case on the evidence led before it without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 23. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the material collected during investigation, the absence at this stage of a sufficiently proximate circumstance connecting the applicants with the actual homicidal occurrence, completion of investigation and filing of the chargesheet, I am of the view that continued incarceration of the applicants pending trial is not warranted. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) Bail Application No.1612 of 2026 is allowed. 9 of 10 RB923-1612-26 (ii) Applicant No.1 – Mogaraben w/o Ajitbhai Valvi and Applicant No.2 – Kantilal Dashrath Padvi shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.173 of 2026 registered with Taloda Police Station, District Nandurbar, on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. (iii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (iv) The applicants shall not enter the village/locality in which the material prosecution witnesses reside, except for attending the trial or with prior permission of the Trial Court, for a period of six months from their release. (v) The applicants shall furnish their current residential address and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court and shall intimate any change thereof. (vi) The applicants shall attend the Trial Court regularly and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. (vii) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court and, if possessing passports, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court. (viii) Any attempt to contact or influence the material prosecution witnesses shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 10 of 10