Date : 25 November 2025.
P.C. :
By this application, the applicant seeks bail in
connection with CR No.98 of 2024, registered at Shirgaon
Paranjwadi Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC).
____________________________________________
25 November 2025
Chitra Sonawane 4-bailappl-869-2025.doc
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19 March
2024 at about 5:30 a.m., on the Bebedohal-Pawna Nagar
road, situated within Taluka-Maval, District-Pune, the
applicant/accused, in connivance with a juvenile co-accused,
pursued Sudhir Macchindra Adsul while he was returning
home on his motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-12-
BT-3213. It is further alleged that the applicant and his
accomplice assaulted the victim by striking his head with a
steel pipe, thereby causing him to fall from the vehicle. The
assailants thereafter continued to inflict blows upon his
head and body. Upon the arrival of a passerby, the
informant herein, the accused persons fled the scene.
Subsequently, Sudhir Adsul succumbed to the injuries
sustained during the said assault.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant, asserting the applicant's innocence, contends that
the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is
submitted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay
of approximately seven hours in the registration of the FIR,
which casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution's version. The applicant is a young person aged
27 years, with no prior criminal antecedents. It is further
____________________________________________
25 November 2025
Chitra Sonawane 4-bailappl-869-2025.doc
submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail
since 20 March 2024, and despite a considerable lapse of
time, the charge has not yet been framed. The learned
Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
fact that the initial registration of FIR was under Section
307 of the IPC. However, upon the subsequent demise of
the injured person during the course of medical treatment,
the offence was later altered to one under Section 302 of
the IPC. It is contended that the statements of the purported
eyewitnesses are riddled with material contradictions and
inconsistencies. It is submitted that the said witnesses are
planted and interested. It is also submitted that at the time
of the applicant's arrest, the mandatory requirement of
communicating the grounds of arrest was not complied
with. Reliance is placed on the judgments in (i) Ravinder @
Tanni @ Taran Vs the State of Haryana, 2025 PHHC
021359; (ii) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr,
2025 INSC 162; (iii) Directorate of Enforcement Vs.
Subhash Sharma 2025 INSC 141; (iv) Mahesh Pandurang
Naik Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2024 :BHC-AS
28603-DB; (v) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
2024 INSC 414; (vi) Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India &
____________________________________________
25 November 2025
Chitra Sonawane 4-bailappl-869-2025.doc
Ors, 2023 INSC 866; (vii) Ajit Kisan More Vs State of
Maharashtra, through Inspector of Police of Vadgoan
Nimbalkar Police Station, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2899;
(viii) Ashrafbhai Ibrahimbhai Kalavdiya Vs UOI & Anr,
Cri.BA No.420 of 2025 Bom. HC, (ix) Mohd Aslam Mohd
Merchant Vs the State of Maharashtra, BA No.986 of 2025,
Bom HC; (x) Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra &
Anr. 2025 INSC 1288.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, opposes the
applicant's request for bail. He submits that the applicant in
connivance with the co-accused assaulted the deceased with
the steel pipes, thereby inflicting grievous injuries. As a
result of the said assault, the deceased lost consciousness at
the scene of the incident and, despite being promptly shifted
for medical treatment, succumbed to his injuries during the
course of such treatment. The medical papers, including
post-mortem examination revealed multiple fractures on the
skull of the deceased, indicative of a brutal and fatal attack.
The learned APP further submits that the eyewitnesses
categorically implicated the applicant in the commission of
the offence. The weapons of offence, stained with blood,
____________________________________________
25 November 2025
Chitra Sonawane 4-bailappl-869-2025.doc
were recovered from the scene of the occurrence.
Incriminating material in the form of blood stained clothes
worn by the applicant at the time of the incident has also
been seized from his possession. It is further submitted that
the applicant was apprehended and the fact of his arrest was
duly communicated to his relatives, Akshay Ozarkar and
Sandip Gaikwad. The station diary entry
contemporaneously records that the applicant was informed
of the grounds of his arrest.
5. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the
material placed on record. The applicant stands accused of
a grave and serious offence punishable under Section 302 of
the IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 19 March 2024 at
about 5:30 a.m., the applicant, in connivance with a
juvenile co-accused, pursued the deceased, Sudhir Adsul,
and assaulted him with a steel pipe, causing fatal injuries.
The post-mortem report reveals multiple skull fractures,
indicative of a brutal and targeted attack. The nature of the
assault, involving repeated blows to the head and body,
prima facie reflects a deliberate and violent intent. The
eyewitnesses have categorically implicated the applicant in
____________________________________________
25 November 2025
Chitra Sonawane 4-bailappl-869-2025.doc
the commission of the offence. The recovery of blood-
stained weapons from the scene and seizure of blood-
stained clothes from the applicant lend further credence to
the prosecution's case.
6. The contention regarding the delay of seven hours in
lodging the FIR does not, in the facts of the present case,
appear to be so inordinate or unexplained as to cast serious
doubt on the prosecution's version. The incident occurred
in a relatively remote area, and the informant was a
passerby who witnessed the aftermath. The delay, therefore,
appears to be reasonable.
7. As regards the alleged contradictions in the statements
of eyewitnesses and the claim that they are planted or
interested, such contentions pertain to the realm of
appreciation of evidence. The alteration of the offence from
Section 307 to Section 302 of the IPC, consequent upon the
death of the victim, is a procedural development in
accordance with law and does not, by itself, dilute the
gravity of the offence. The applicant's contention that the
grounds of arrest were not communicated is refuted by the
prosecution, which has placed reliance on the
____________________________________________
25 November 2025
Chitra Sonawane 4-bailappl-869-2025.doc
contemporaneous station diary entry, and the fact that the
applicant's relatives were duly informed.
8. While it is true that the applicant is a young person
with no prior criminal antecedents and has been languishing
in jail since 20 March 2024, these factors alone cannot
override the seriousness of the allegations and the weight of
the material collected during the investigation.
Furthermore, the judgments relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the applicant, though laying down important
principles regarding personal liberty, procedural safeguards,
and the presumption of innocence, are distinguishable on
the facts. In the present case, the cumulative circumstances,
namely, the gravity of the offence, the nature of the assault,
the prima facie involvement of the applicant, and the
recovery of incriminating material, tilt the balance against
the grant of bail.
9. The present application for bail is, accordingly,
rejected.
[R. N. Laddha, J.]
____________________________________________
25 November 2025
