Bombay High Court

NARSIMMA RAJU MUGONDAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 19 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The applicant, Narsimma Raju Mugonda, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to the alleged murder of his father. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his mother jointly committed the murder, while the defence argued there was no evidence of his individual participation in the homicide, only liability under Section 238. The court examined witness statements, which indicated the applicant was present during a family quarrel but did not directly partake in the killing, and noted that the investigating officer concluded liability only under Section 238. Considering the applicant's lack of prior criminal record, the family‑dispute context, and the nature of the charge (punishable with up to seven years imprisonment), the court found him eligible for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a bond of Rs.50,000 and several attendance and conduct conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail for an offence punishable under Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the evidence establishes the applicant's participation in the murder sufficient to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
family dispute
murder
Section 238
Section 103
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
custody
conditions of bail

Judgment

HEMANT                H.C.SHIV                                              29.BA1095.26.DOC
CHANDERSEN
SHIV
Digitally signed by              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date: 2026.08.21
10:31:33 +0300
                                        BAIL APPLICATION NO.1095 OF 2026

                      Narsimma Raju Mugonda                                      …. Applicant
                            V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra                                  …Respondent


                      Mr. Abhinav Dubey with Chintan Patel, Rajlaxmi Dubey, Mridul
                      Das, Jyoti Pujari for the Applicant.
                      Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State.
                      Ms. Sonali Ghadge, Pahiravi Officer, BKC police station present.


                                                   CORAM:        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                   DATED :       19th AUGUST, 2026
                      P.C. :-

                      1.         The Applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No. 175 of
                      2025, registered with B.K.C. Police Station, Mumbai for the
                      offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya
                      Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) on the report dated 06.04.2025 filed
                      by Ms.Preeti Dulgaj, who is the daughter of the deceased.

                      2.         The case of the prosecution, is that the Applicant/A-1 is son
                      of the deceased, Raju Mugonda, whereas A-2, Padma Mugonda, is
                      his wife. It is alleged that, owing to the deceased’s drinking habits,
                      frequent quarrels used to take place between the deceased, A-1
                      and A-2. On 05/04/2025, the informant/daughter of the deceased
                      received an information on phone that her father had been killed
                      by an unknown person, therefore, she lodged the aforesaid FIR.
                      During investigation, police arrested both the accused and, upon
                      completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against them.

                      3.         Mr.Dubey, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that,
                      there is no evidence against the Applicant that he has committed
                      the murder individually or nor that he had shared common

                                                        Page 1 of 3
H.C.SHIV                                           29.BA1095.26.DOC



intention with A-2 for the same. He has been charged only for the
offence under Section 238 of BNS. Therefore, bail may be granted.

4.         In reply, Mr.Kulkarni, learned APP submits that there is
clear evidence against the Applicant that he along with A-2
committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the bail may be
refused.

5.         I have considered these submissions. The submission
advanced by Mr. Kulkarni, learned APP, is based on the
statements of the witnesses. However, the said statements indicate
that at about 7.00 p.m., there was a quarrel between the deceased
and A-2, during which the Applicant was present and alleged to
have assaulted the deceased. However, the neighbour, namely
Ankit Paswan, intervened and by pacifying the Applicant, took
him outside the house. Thereafter, Applicant went away and A-2
closed the door of the room from inside. Subsequently A-2 and the
deceased again had a quarrel. After some time, at about 8.00 p.m.,
A-2 opened the door of the room and called the Applicant. Upon
entering the room, the Applicant immediately came out and
informed the neighbours that the deceased had sustained a knife
injury. However, the Applicant concealed the knife to take the
responsibility of the murder on him to shield his mother (A-2). In
this backdrop, the Investigating Officer has concluded that the
Applicant is liable only for the offence punishable under Section
238 of the BNS. The said offence is punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to seven years. The Applicant has been in
custody for the last fourteen months. He has no criminal
antecedents. The incident appears to have arisen out of a family
dispute.

6.         In view above, the Applicant is entitled for bail. Hence,
following Order :-

                                Page 2 of 3
H.C.SHIV                                                 29.BA1095.26.DOC



           (i)    The Applicant – Narsimma Raju Mugonda be released
           on bail in aforesaid FIR registered with B.K.C. Police
           Station, Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
           Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

           (ii)   The Applicant shall attend at B.K.C. Police Station,
           Mumbai on 1st and 16th day of each calender month between
           11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.

           (iii) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
           before the jurisdictional Court.

           (iv)   The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
           evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
           the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
           against him.

           (v)    On being released from jail, the Applicant shall
           furnish his contact number and residential address to the
           Investigating Officer and update him, in case of any change.

           (vi)   The Applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
           for which he has been arraigned in this case.

           (vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
           order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
           Application and should not influence the outcome of the
           trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
           the merits of the case.

7.         Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.



                                      (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




                                     Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…