Bombay High Court
ROHIT DYANESHWAR KUKDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The court granted bail, holding that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to deny liberty at the pre‑trial stage and that conditions could mitigate any risk of tampering.
Summary
The applicant, a student, was implicated in a fatal shooting case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Indian Arms Act, based on an FIR that named unknown assailants. The prosecution alleged the applicant procured the weapon and highlighted his role in lodging a related FIR, claiming prima facie evidence of a conspiracy. The applicant contended false implication, citing lack of eyewitness testimony, delayed statements, and absence of corroborative evidence, and argued that continued incarceration would harm his academic prospects. The court examined the circumstantial nature of the evidence, the unexplained investigative delays, and noted that the investigation was complete, finding no compelling reason to deny bail. Considering the applicant's clean record and the ability to impose stringent conditions to prevent tampering, the court granted regular bail with a bond and specific conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be denied in a fatal shooting case where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence and alleges the applicant's involvement in a conspiracy.
- Whether the delay in recording witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence justify denial of bail.
- Whether the risk of tampering with evidence warrants refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3/25, 5/27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
- Mumbai Police Act — s. 135
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- circumstantial evidence
- conspiracy
- firearm offence
- student
- pre‑trial detention
- Indian Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Mumbai Police Act
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23006
946 BA1016.2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1016 OF 2026
ROHIT DYANESHWAR KUKDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ade Ravindra B.
APP for Respondent/State: Mr. D. J. Patil
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 12.06.2026
ORDER :-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking regular
bail in connection with FIR dated 24.01.2026 bearing Crime No. 38 of
2026 registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station, District Jalna for the
offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3/25, 5/27 of Indian Arms Act
read with Section 135 of Mumbai Police Act.
2. The prosecution case is that on 23.01.2026 approximately
at 08:45 p.m., the informant received a telephone call while working at
a Chinese food cart. The caller informed that his brother-in-law, Charan
Rayman, had been killed and instructed him to report immediately to
Kalawati Hospital. Upon receiving this information, the informant and
946 BA1016.2026
-2-
his wife rushed to Kalawati Hospital, where learned that the victim had
already been referred to the Civil Hospital for treatment. The informant
and his wife immediately proceeded to the casualty ward of the Civil
Hospital. Upon their arrival, the concerned Medical Officer examined
Charan Rayman and declared dead.
3. The prosecution case further states that the people
assembled at the hospital informed that the incident occurred between
08:00 p.m. and 08:30 p.m. on 23.01.2026. The assault took place in
front of the Siddhivinayak Balrugnalaya on Ghati Road in Old Jalna,
where two unidentified individuals riding a two-wheeler fired a pistol
bullet at the victim. Charan Rayman sustained a grievous firearm injury
from the attack, which resulted in his death, leading the informant to
lodge the present complaint against the unknown assailants.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a
case of false implication. The contents of the FIR establish that the
informant is not an eyewitness to the incident, having only received
information from unidentified individuals who were present at the
hospital. This complaint was lodged against unknown persons and the
subsequent implication of the applicant rests solely on vague suspicions.
946 BA1016.2026
-3-
In any case, the implication of the applicant is at delayed stage. The
incident is of 23.01.2026 and the statement of the wife of the deceased
was recorded on 27.01.2026. In any case, the only allegation is of
procurement of the weapon allegedly used in the crime from applicant.
The applicant is a student. There are no criminal antecedent. The
Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed, as such, further
incarceration of the applicant would be unjustified.
5. Per contra, the learned APP vehemently opposes the bail
application submitting that there is strong prima facie evidence
establishing the applicant's direct involvement in a criminal conspiracy.
The prosecution highlights the incriminating circumstance wherein one
of the related FIRs was actually lodged at the instance of the present
applicant. Given the gravity of the crime involving a fatal daylight
shooting, the applicant's active role in the conspiracy disentitles to be
admitted to bail. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every
possibility of tampering with the prosecution case. As such, prayed to
reject the bail application.
6. Upon considering the submissions of both the sides and
perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet, that the
946 BA1016.2026
-4-
FIR was registered against unknown persons based on information
received by the informant at the hospital. The prosecution case is
premised on circumstantial evidence and a subsequent theory of
conspiracy, the roots of which must be tested during the trial. The
learned APP argued that the applicant's involvement in lodging a
related FIR points toward complicity, I find that such a circumstance
requires strict proof and cannot form the sole basis for denying personal
liberty at the pre-trial stage.
7. Moreover, a perusal of the material on record reveals that,
prima facie, this appears to be a case of false implication. There is an
unexplained and significant delay on the part of the investigating
agency in recording the statements of the material witnesses.
Furthermore, the delayed statements prima facie indicates that they
contain a bare assertion regarding the procurement of the weapon
allegedly used in the incident, without any corroborative evidence.
8. Apart from the aforesaid aspects, the investigation is
complete for all intents and purposes and the custody of the applicant is
no longer required. Considering the number of witnesses the
prosecution proposes to examine, there is every likelihood that the trial
946 BA1016.2026
-5-
will take a considerable time before reaching its final conclusion.
Furthermore, The arrest of the applicant has been effected on
29.03.2026 and since then, is in jail.
9. The applicant is a student whose academic career and
future prospects would be severely jeopardized by prolonged
incarceration during the pre-trial phase. The apprehension expressed by
the learned APP about tampering with the prosecution evidence can be
adequately taken care of by imposing stringent conditions.
10. Hence, following order :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant – ROHIT DYANESHWAR KUKDE, be released
on regular bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two local solvent
sureties in the like amount, in connection with Crime No.
38 of 2026 registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station,
District Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections
103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and under Section 3/25, 5/27 of Indian Arms Act read
with Section 135 of Mumbai Police Act, on the following
conditions :-
946 BA1016.2026
-6-
(a) The applicant shall attend each and every date of the
Trial Court unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(c) The applicant shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card to
the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses and
phone numbers of applicant and two of the near
relatives.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this
Court seeking cancellation of bail.
(III) Needless to states that the observations rendered herein
are to the extent of this application and the trial court
shall not be influenced by the same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
marathe
Checking your session…