Bombay High Court
BUNTY GULAB RAHASEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the applicant’s distinct motive precludes the application of parity and therefore bail was denied.
Summary
The applicant, Bunty Gulab Rahase, sought bail in a murder case under Sections 103(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the prosecution’s case rests solely on circumstantial evidence and lacks any direct link to him. He argued that co‑accused Mahada Thakare and Dinesh Bhil had been granted bail and that, on the principle of parity, he should likewise be released. The State contended that the applicant was the prime accused, with witnesses placing him with the deceased shortly before the murder, thereby establishing a motive. The court examined the statements of witnesses Pralhad, Vikram and Sachin, noting that the applicant had a prior quarrel with the deceased and had taken the garage key, indicating a specific motive. It concluded that the applicant’s role was distinct from the co‑accused and that parity did not apply. Consequently, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a case for bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted on the ground of parity with co‑accused who have been released.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence and alleged motive establish a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 115(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- parity
- motive
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24581
65-BA-1073-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
65 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1073 OF 2026
Bunty Gulab Rahase
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
...
Mr. Umakant Wagh for the Applicant.
Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 22 JUNE 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the present application, the applicant seeks his release on bail in
connection with Crime No.351 of 2024 registered with Taloda Police Station,
Taluka Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections
103(1), 115(2) and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution’s case are such that the deceased
used to run online forms filling centre at Pragati Xerox. The accused had
given work of preparation of caste validity certificate to the deceased. On
failure to complete the work a quarrel took place between them on 28 th
November 2024. Later on, on 29 th November 2024, in the morning a dead
body was found at the welding shop. On suspicion, FIR was registered and
applicant was arrested.
Shubham Page 1 of 4
65-BA-1073-2026.doc
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case
rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the investigating agency
has not collected any direct or indirect evidence connecting the applicant
with the alleged offence. It is contended that the only allegation against the
applicant is that there had been a quarrel between him and the deceased in
connection with the preparation of a caste validity certificate. According to
the learned counsel, such an incident, by itself, cannot be construed as a
sufficient motive for the applicant to eliminate the deceased.
5. Learned counsel further submits that this Court has granted bail to co-
accused Mahada Thakare in Bail Application No. 120 of 2025 and to co-
accused Dinesh Bhil in Bail Application No. 735 of 2025. It is contended that
the role attributed to the present applicant is similar to that of the aforesaid
co-accused and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on
the ground of parity.
6. It is further submitted that the motive projected by the prosecution is
inherently improbable and does not inspire confidence. The entire case
being based on circumstantial evidence, there is not a single incriminating
circumstance on record that conclusively connects the applicant with the
commission of the offence. Learned counsel submits that the investigation
has been completed, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant is no
longer required for custodial interrogation. On these grounds, particularly
the principle of parity, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged
Shubham Page 2 of 4
65-BA-1073-2026.doc
on bail.
7. Learned APP opposes the application by contending that the
allegation against the co-accused are different. The present applicant is the
prime accused who had a quarrel with the deceased, which was witnessed
by witnesses namely Pralhad, Vikram and Sachin, which clearly establishes
the motive of applicant to commit murder of the deceased. The offence is
serious in nature and the ground of parity claimed by the applicant does not
hold the field. Therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. The investigation papers reveal that there had been a quarrel between
the present applicant and the deceased prior to the incident. The statements
of witnesses Pralhad, Vikram and Sachin indicate that the deceased was last
seen in the company of the present applicant at the garage of Nimaji Walvi,
where the applicant was employed. Vikram, in his statement, has stated that
the applicant had taken the key of the garage, while Pralhad has stated that
he had seen the deceased in the company of Bunty, the present applicant,
Mahada and others shortly before the incident.
10. The material collected during investigation further shows that the
applicant had obtained the key of the garage from Vikram and that both the
applicant and Vikram were working at the same garage. These
Shubham Page 3 of 4
65-BA-1073-2026.doc
circumstances, coupled with the previous quarrel between the applicant and
the deceased, prima facie indicate the existence of a motive attributable to
the applicant.
11. Insofar as the contention regarding parity is concerned, the material
on record discloses a distinct motive against the present applicant.
Therefore, the role attributed to him cannot be said to be identical to that of
the co-accused who have been granted bail. Consequently, the principle of
parity is not attracted in the facts of the present case.
12. Having regard to the material collected during investigation and the
specific role attributed to the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant
has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Hence, I am not inclined to
exercise discretion in his favour.
13. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…