SHIVSHANKAR MALLIKARJUN KOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:20793-DB


                                                        1                      903.2026APPLN.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
                        924 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 903 OF 2026
                                   IN APEAL/864/2025
                        RAMESH BHAGWAN MUNDE AND ANOTHER
                                      VERSUS
                            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                  ...
              Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Solanke S.B.
              APP for Respondent/State : Mrs. V.S. Choudhari
              Advocate for assist to P.P. : Mr. G.R. Syed.
                                                  ...
                                        WITH
                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1140 OF 2026
                                   IN APEAL/864/2025

                           SHIVSHANKAR MALLIKARJUN KORE
                                       VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Syed G.R.
              APP for Respondent/State : Mrs.V.S. Choudhari
              Advocate for Respondent nos.2 and 3 : Mr. S.B. Solanke
                                            ...
                                  CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                          VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
                                  DATED : 30th APRIL, 2026.
              ORDER :

              Criminal Application No. 1140 of 2026 :
                    Heard.
              2.    For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
              allowed. Learned Advocate for applicant is permitted to assist learned
              A.P.P. while arguing the appeal as well as Criminal Application for bail.


              Criminal Application No. 903 of 2026 :


                          Both the applicants-accused nos.1 and 3 (along with
                                      2                        903.2026APPLN.odt


accused no.2) are convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Dharashiv under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2025, in
Sessions Case No.102/2022. By this application, accused nos.1 and 3
are seeking bail.


2.           Learned Advocate for the applicants has urged that
deceased was 25 years of age, whereas in the postmortem report the
age of the deceased is mentioned as 40 years. In identification parade,
only accused no.1 was identified. The panchas to the identification
parade were not examined. The DNA report is given by another person
whereas some other person is examined to prove the same. By relying
on portion mark "A" of Exhibit-119, he submitted that the dead body
was of some unknown person and not that of the deceased. Accused
no.1 - Ramesh is in jail since 16.04.2022 and accused no.3 Amol is in
custody since 27.05.2023. Considering the period of long incarceration
they may be released on bail. He also claimed bail on the ground of
parity as accused no.2 - Shivshankar Haribhau Ingale is released on bail
by this Court.


3.           Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, strenuously opposed the
application. She argued that just before the incident, father of deceased
had called him on his cell phone at about 8.30 p.m. on the day of the
incident and the deceased told his father that he is coming by pick up.
At 9.30 p.m., accused nos.1 and 3 purchased liquor and paid Rs.2100/-
from the cell phone of the deceased. Thereafter, accused no.3 paid
Rs.3500/- to PW-8 - rickshaw driver from the cell phone of the
deceased and obtained Rs.3300/- from him in cash. There is recovery
from accused no.1. Accused no.3 is also identified in the Court by PW-
                                      3                         903.2026APPLN.odt


8. CDR and SDR of cell phone of accused no.1 shows the location of
accused at Shingoli Shivar i.e. place of incidence. She, therefore,
submits that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of the
accused.


4.          Learned    Advocate    for    the   informant   adopted    the
arguments of learned A.P.P.. In addition, he pointed out relevant
material against the accused. Therefore, he contended that the
application is devoid of merit and the same may be rejected.


5.          First we will deal with the ground of parity as is urged by
the applicants-accused. Original accused no.2 - Shivshankar Haribhau
Ingale was granted bail by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court by
observing that, " However, on going through the material on record and
the impugned judgment, it appears that learned Trial Judge has
observed the involvement of this applicant in the crime merely on the
basis of evidence of P.W. 13 and Exhibit 93, which is his confessional
statement, recorded by the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate.
However, on going through the said confessional statement, it is
evident that nothing incriminating has been stated by him, which can
connect him with the crime. Only it has come on record in the said
statement that he was in the pickup along with other two accused and
when they started from Kaij, he slept in the said pick-up and when he
got up, he saw one additional passenger sitting in the said pickup
vehicle and thereafter he again slept in the vehicle." It is further
observed that, "except the statement of co-accused, which is
inadmissible, there was no incriminating material against against
accused no.2. He was also not identified by the auto rickshaw driver."
Therefore, he was granted bail.
                                             4                        903.2026APPLN.odt


      6.           Coming to the facts of the present case, we have perused
      the evidence with the assistance of learned Advocate for the applicants,
      learned A.P.P. for the State and learned Advocate for informant.


      7.           Prima facie, we find sufficient material to connect the
      applicants-accused to the present crime. The CDR and SDR of the cell
      phone of accused no.1 shows the presence of the accused at the spot of
      incident at the relevant time. Both the accused were seen in the CCTV
      footage of Meghdoot Hotel, where an amount of Rs.2100/- was paid
      from the cell phone of the deceased. Accused no.3 is identified in the
      Court by PW-8 rickshaw driver, to whom, accused no.3 had transferred
      an amount of Rs.3500/- from the cell phone of the deceased and had
      obtained cash amount of Rs.3300/- from him. We find no merit in the
      submission of the accused that there is variance in the age mentioned
      in the postmortem report and the actual age of the deceased as at the
      time of conducting postmortem, admittedly, the body was in highly
      decomposed condition, therefore, age appears to be mentioned
      approximately. Fact remains that DNA report confirms that the death
      body was of the deceased. There is recovery of clothes, cell phone of
      the deceased and towel used in commission of crime from accused
      no.1.


      8.           For the aforestated evidence, we are of the prima facie
      view that there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction
      of the applicants-accused. According to us, therefore, this is not a fit
      case to grant bail. Application is therefore rejected.



      (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.)                  (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI,J.)
sga