Bombay High Court

RAVINDRA SUBHAH BORDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the appellant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to demonstrate pre‑meditation, a motive, or sufficient material linking him to the murder.

Summary

The appellant was arrested for murder under Section 103(1) of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, stemming from a dispute where the deceased stabbed the appellant and the appellant allegedly assaulted the deceased, leading to the latter's death. The appellant argued that there was no concrete evidence linking him to a pre‑meditated killing, noting the absence of the alleged weapon, lack of motive, and his role in taking the deceased to hospital. The State contended that eyewitness statements and the post‑mortem report established the appellant’s culpability and seriousness of the offence. The Court observed that the incident appeared spontaneous, the weapon was not identified, and there was no motive, concluding that the prosecution lacked sufficient material to justify denial of bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail with conditions, emphasizing that the observations were prima‑facie and should not prejudice the trial.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite being charged with murder under the BNS and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether the evidence establishes a pre‑meditated murder or merely an assault resulting in death.
Whether the prosecution has sufficient material to connect the appellant to the alleged crime.
Whether the appellant poses a flight risk or threat to witnesses.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 103(1)
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

bail
murder
SC/ST Act
premeditation
evidence
weapon identification
criminal antecedents
trial

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44102
                                                  1                       45.doc



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                        45 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2026

                             RAVINDRA SUBHAH BORDE
                                     VERSUS
                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                            ...


                Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. Bobade Sopan Gynba
                     APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.B. Narwade
            Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Sultana R. Khan (Appointed)
                                          …
                                          CORAM       : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                             DATE     : 28.09.2026
             PER COURT :
             .       This appeal is under Sections 103 (1) of the BNS and 3(2) (v),
             3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, thereby
             challenging the rejection of the regular bail application filed by the
             appellant.

             2.      The appellant came to be arrested on 30.08.2025 in connection
             with C.R. No.431/2025 registered at Chikalthana Police Station, Dist.
             Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

             3.      As per the First Information Report, the incident had occurred on
             28.08.2025. The informant states that the present appellant and
             deceased were drinking liquor together. Some dispute arose between
             them. The deceased stabbed the appellant. Appellant is stated to have
             assaulted the deceased with some weapon, thereby causing injury to
             his chest. He was taken to hospital. He subsequently died. Hence,
                                    2                         45.doc



offence of murder came to be charged against the appellant.
4.    Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in jail
for over a period of one year. There is absolutely no evidence to
attribute the charge of murder against the appellant for killing the
deceased. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the first
information report so also the statement of the eye-witness which
shows that this is a case of injury being caused to the deceased in a
fight between appellant and deceased. He, therefore, contends that the
attribution of deliberate injury to the appellant is not possible.
According to him, the alleged weapon used in the assault has not been
seized at his instance nor after its seizure, the weapon came to be
identified by the eyewitness. He, therefore, seeks enlargement of the
appellant on bail.

5.    Learned APP and learned counsel for informant opposed the
appeal by citing the seriousness of the crime. It is further contended
that there is evidence in the form of statement of eye witnesses
indicating that the appellant having caused injury to the deceased
which led to his death. They also invited attention to the the post-
mortem report which shows that injury to the chest resulted in the
death of the deceased. It is further argued that, having regard to the
nature of the offence and evidence collected during the course of
investigation, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for
informant drew attention of the Court to statement of one witness to
claim that there was motive for appellant to commit murder of
deceased.

6.    Apparently, the record indicates that the incident has occurred
                                     3                        45.doc



spontaneously. There is no reason to believe that there was any
premeditated plan on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased.
Though, the statement of the witness is referred to indicate that there
was some dispute with regard to monetary transaction between
appellant and deceased, the fact that, both of them were consuming
liquor together, does not support the said contention. Thus, apparently,
there is an absence of motive on the part of the appellant to kill the
deceased. This gets strengthened from the fact that the present
appellant was one of the persons who took the deceased to the
hospital. Needless to say that, if the appellant wanted to kill the
deceased, he would not have taken him to the hospital.

7.    The first informant does not specifically identify the weapon used
by the appellant for the purpose of the assault in his statement.
Apparently, the weapon has not been shown to the witness in order to
identify it as the same weapon used in the assault. Having regard to
these facts and also in view of the fact that, there is absolutely no
material to connect the appellant with the crime and there is no
likelihood of conclusion of the trial in a short period of time, the appeal
deserves to be allowed. Appellant has no criminal antecedents and he is
not likely to flee from justice. Hence, the order :


                                  ORDER
i) Criminal Appeal is allowed.

ii) The appellant be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R.
No.431/2025 dated 29.08.2025 registered at Chikalthana Police
Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable
                                    4                         45.doc



under Sections 103 (1) of BNS and 3(2)(v), 3(2) (va) of SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.
15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety in the like
amount.

(iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.

(v) He is directed to attend all dates of hearing before trial Court
unless exempted by the said Court.

(vi) The above observations are prima-facie in nature and the trial
Court shall not get influenced by any of the observations made
hereinabove.

(vii) The fees of learned appointed counsel is quantified at
Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).



                                                  ( R. M. JOSHI, J. )



V.S.Joshi

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…