[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sandip S/O Rambhau Gaikwad And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Ps In ... on 27 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4946
1 27-Cr.BA-338-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 338 OF 2026
Sandip s/o Rambhau Gaikwad and Another
-- VERSUS --
The State of Maharashtra
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. Haseeb K. Mirza, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.R. Chutke, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : MARCH 27, 2026.
Heard.
2. The present application is filed seeking
regular bail in Crime No.04/2025 for the offence
punishable under Sections 103(1), 74, 75 and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (BNS),
registered with Police Station Karanja, District
Washim.
3. The First Information Report dated
03/01/2025 was lodged by the informant, Lavlesh
Dashrath Kodape. He stated that his wife, deceased
Sonu Kodape, used to regularly graze their goats in
the nearby grazing land. On the day of the incident,
while the informant was engaged in labour work in
an agricultural field, he received information in the
afternoon that his wife had been killed. Upon
2 27-Cr.BA-338-2026
reaching the grazing land, he found her lying dead
beneath a tree with injuries on her neck and right
shoulder caused by a sharp weapon, with blood stains
on her clothes. The informant alleged that an
unknown person assaulted his wife with a sharp
weapon while she was grazing the goats, resulting in
her death, and accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants
submits that, except for the last seen theory, there is
no evidence on record. He submits that one dead
body of a lady was found at about 01:00 p.m. on
03/01/2025, and therefore, the husband of the said
lady has registered the First Information Report
against unknown persons. He further submits that it
is the allegation of the prosecution that the applicants
followed the deceased on 03/01/2025 between 11:30
a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Apart from this, there is no other
evidence in the entire charge-sheet. He further
submits that though recovery of sickle is shown from
applicant No.1, however, there were no blood stains
on the said sickle and it is shown to be recovered on
07/01/2025. Therefore, he submits that merely on
the basis of last seen theory and recovery, the
applicant cannot be involved. Lastly, he submits that
there is no sufficient material against the applicants
to connect them with the crime.
3 27-Cr.BA-338-2026
5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.
vehemently opposes the application and submits that,
in the supplementary statement recorded by the
Investigating Agency, the informant husband has
disclosed that applicant No.1 was having an ill eye on
the wife of the informant, i.e., the deceased, and
therefore, there is a strong motive to commit the
offence. He further submits that there are 3-4
witnesses who have seen applicants following the
deceased. The recovery of the sickle was made from
applicant No.1 and further blood-stained clothes
were also recovered at the behest of applicant No.1,
and therefore, he submits that, considering the
serious allegations, the applicants do not deserve to
be granted bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions.
Admittedly, the First Information Report was
registered by the husband on 03/01/2025 against
unknown persons. It further appears from the record
that the applicants were arrested on 05/01/2025.
Perusal of the record discloses that there are three
witnesses on the point of last seen, however, it
appears that, the statements of all three witnesses
were recorded on 29/01/2025, i.e., much after the
date of the incident. It is further to be noted that
merely on the basis of recovery of sickle and blood-
stained clothes, circumstantial link cannot be
4 27-Cr.BA-338-2026
established, meaning thereby, that these
circumstances alone are not sufficient to connect the
applicants with the alleged crime. It appears from the
record that the applicants were arrested on
05/01/2025. Considering the nature of material
collected by the Investigating Officer and the fact that
the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed,
I am inclined to grant bail by imposing stringent
conditions. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is
allowed;
(ii) The applicants/accused (Sandip
s/o Rambhau Gaikwad and Kishor @ Babu s/o
Devrao Kove) be released on regular bail in
connection with Crime No.04/2025 for the
offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 74,
75 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, (BNS), registered with Police Station
Karanja, District Washim, on his furnishing a P.R.
bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees)
each with two solvent sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) The accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
5 27-Cr.BA-338-2026
of the case, as also shall not tamper with the
evidence;
(iv) The accused shall provide their
residential address and cell number to Police
Station concerned and shall not change their
place of residence without prior intimation to
the Investigating Agency;
(v) The accused shall attend each and
every date of trial regularly. If they fails to
attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or
fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions,
their default would entail the State to ask for
cancellation of bail or even trial Court can suo
moto take cognizance of this and cancel the bail;
(vi) Pending Misc. Application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of.
[ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ]
Piyush Mahajan
