BA.2618.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2618 OF 2026 Mr. Kiran Shivaji Khandagale .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Ms. Snigdha Khandelwal a/w Mr. Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, Advocates for Applicant.  Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent – State.  Mr. M.M. Garad, PSI, Khed Police Station. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Khandelwal, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent – State. 2. Present Bail Application is filed by Applicant / Accused No.1 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking enlargement on medical urgency pursuant to his arrest in FIR No.325 of 2025 registered with Khed Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. On 23.03.2026, Sessions Court, Khed – Rajgurunagar, Pune rejected Applicant’s bail application on ground of parity. Trial has not yet commenced. Applicant having no antecedents is 27 years old and 1 of 9 BA.2618.2026.doc was arrested on 04.06.2025. Applicant is incarcerated for 1 year 3 months and 12 days in Yerwada central jail. 4. Briefly stated, on 03.06.2025 at around 10:30 pm deceased victim – Santosh Dhamale and his friend first informant – Ashok Gargote after consuming alcohol came out of the bar. Deceased – Santosh Dhamale went to speak with Applicant and Accused No.2 was already standing in front of bar. At that time, a quarrel ensued on account of allegation that Accused No.2 had molested daughter of the deceased, turned into scuffle between them. Applicant and Accused No.2 allegedly took out concealed weapons (Koyta) and assaulted deceased victim who later succumbed to his injuries. 5. Ms. Khandelwal, learned Advocate for Applicant relying on medical report of Applicant’s wife dated 02.08.2026 would submit that she is suffering from Typhoid and Dengue and was hospitalized. She would submit that Applicant has a 4 year old son who is dependent upon his ill wife as there is no other family member available for providing livelihood and support to both of them. 5.1. She would submit that Applicant was arrested immediately after occurrence of incident without following any due course of procedure of arrest as laid down in the statute. She would submit that grounds of arrest were not communicated to Applicant in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Sections 47 and 48 of Bharatiya 2 of 9 BA.2618.2026.doc Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby vitiating the arrest and rendering continued detention of Applicant unsustainable in law. 5.2. She would submit that 29 witnesses cited by prosecution are yet to be examined which indicates that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. She would submit that futher incarceration of Applicant pending trial would amount to pre-trial punishment. She would submit that prosecution failed to attribute any motive or intention of Applicant for commission of alleged offence. She would submit that no CCTV footage has been recovered or collected by the Investigating Officer in support of the case of prosecution. 5.3. Furthermore, she would submit that alleged weapon used for commission of crime was not recovered from the Applicant. She would submit that entire case against the Applicant rest purely on circumstantial evidence as no independent eyewitness statement has been recorded to establish role of Applicant in the alleged crime. She would submit that the purported eyewitnesses i.e. Ashok – first informant and Vandana – wife of deceased, who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the incident, have given contradictory statements and therefore, there is no reliable eyewitness for implicating the Applicant. 5.4. Moreover, she would submit that prosecution chose not to examine persons at or near the crime scene who were independent witnesses namely, Sanjay Bhau Shinde – man at the bar counter. 3 of 9 BA.2618.2026.doc Therefore, she would submit that Applicant be allowed to enlarged on bail. 6. PER CONTRA, Ms. Gotad, learned Advocate for Respondent – State would vehemently oppose this bail application and submit that Applicant was the one who had called Accused No.3 and made demand of weapons (Koyta). She would submit that Applicant also showed where the seized weapons were concealed. She would submit that Applicant is the key accused accompanying Accused No.2 and he was also involved in preparation and commission of offence. 6.1. She would submit that while causing the injury to deceased victim, Applicant was fully conscious and aware that the natural consequences of his actions are likely to cause death of the deceased victim. She would submit that postmortem report and inquest panchanama of deceased itself are evident and suggestive which demonstrate the intention of the Applicant to cause fatal injuries that would result in the death of the deceased. 6.2. She would submit that Applicant’s contention that he acted in private defense is absolutely and materially contradictory to his actions. She would submit that a normal person would not have given multiple fatal blows with a weapon while acting in private defense. She would persuade the Court to consider that the gruesomeness with which the crime was executed was such that Applicant would be a 4 of 9 BA.2618.2026.doc threat to the Society if he is enlarged on bail, hence his bail application be rejected and dismissed. 7. I have heard Ms. Khandelwal, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent – State and with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by them have received due consideration. 8. Ms. Khandelwal has drawn my attention to the statements of first informant, wife of deceased and son and daughter of deceased. It is seen that there are prima facie contradictory statements made by all of them regarding the incident in question. It is seen that their statements have only made the present case more complicated. It is seen that their statements only clarify that two accused persons assaulted the deceased victim with a sickle without any one of them being an eye-witness to the incident of assault. However, prosecution has not specified the specific role of Applicant in commission of alleged crime. 9. It is clearly visible from the FIR that except first informant none of the family members of deceased victim were present initially at the crime scene when the alleged incident took place. Furthermore, it is seen that first informant himself has stated that when Accused No.2 threatened him by saying “you come here”, first informant fled out of fear from the crime spot to inform the wife of the deceased victim. 5 of 9 BA.2618.2026.doc Therefore, it is seen that first informant has also not been an eye- witness to the whole incident happening. It is clear that thereafter first informant and family members of deceased victim arrived the crime scene, however by that time deceased victim was already lying unconsciously on the ground. 10. In view of the above, recording statement of independent eye-witness was crucial. It is seen that despite availability of many independent eye-witnesses at the crime scene, it being a pubic place, statements of none of them have been recorded by the prosecution in order to solve this intricacy. It is not denied that Applicant is innocent, however there has been no single eye-witness account recorded who could have stated which accused has given the blow to the deceased on which body part and with which weapon. Therefore it is seen that allegations put forth are yet to be proved in trial which has not yet commenced. It is seen that charges are yet to be framed and 29 witnesses in the charge-sheet are to be examined during trial and hence possibility of the trial commencing and being completed in the near foreseeable future is bleak. 11. It is seen from the FIR that there was earlier rivalry between the Accused No.2 and deceased victim and there was no motive whatsoever against the present Applicant. It is very much clear that aforesaid incident has occurred unfortunately due to earlier rivalry or 6 of 9 BA.2618.2026.doc dispute between Accused No.2 and deceased victim where it is alleged that Applicant accompanied Accused No.2 and grievously assaulted deceased who later succumbed to his injuries. 12. It is settled law that object of grant of bail to an accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an indefinite period violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is need to keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. I am of the opinion that seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration in refusing bail. 13. Moreover, it is seen that arresting Applicant without following procedure established by law was violative of his fundamental rights and his detention since arrest for more than a year is against principles of law. It is mandatory to follow the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 while arresting an accused to avoid further consequences of procedural lapses. 14. At this stage, on the basis of the material on record prima facie case for bail is made out as the merits thereof will be adjudicated during trial. Mere suspicion without concrete evidence cannot take the place of certainty. In view of the aforesaid observations, following 7 of 9 BA.2618.2026.doc order is passed. 15. Applicant’s Bail Application is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or two sureties of the like amount; (ii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as applicable; and (iii) After his release from jail, Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when called for; (iv) Applicant shall attend the trial Court on first Tuesday of every month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. to mark his presence. If the first Tuesday of the said month falls on a holiday and / or non Court working day, the Applicant shall mark his presence on the next working day; (v) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the trial Court on all dates unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, 8 of 9 BA.2618.2026.doc if he does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of this order; (vi) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; and (viii) In case of any infraction of the above conditions and / or two consecutive defaults in marking his attendance before trial Court, it shall attract the provisions of Section 492 of BNSS i.e. for cancellation of bail. 16. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made herein above in this order. 17. Bail Application is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 9 of 9 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.17 11:16:26 +0530