TEJAS UMESH MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                1                      953ba1114.26



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

              953 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1114 OF 2026

                        TEJAS UMESH MORE
                               VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                   ...
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chormal Ajit B.
              APP for Respondents/State : Mr.S.V. Hange
                                   ...



                          CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                          DATE      : 19.08.2026

PER COURT :


1.         Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned

APP appearing for the respondent-State.



2.         The present application is filed seeking regular bail in

connection with the Crime No. 64 of 2023 dated 30.01.2023 registered

with Shrirampur Taluka Police Station, Tq. Shrirampur, District

Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504,

506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.



3.         The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits

that the applicant has not been arrested in pursuance of the FIR for the

purpose of investigation but when the FIR was registered on 30.01.2023

he was already arrested and subsequently on 21.03.2023, he was

released on bail. He submits that during the trial proceeding the
                                2                      953ba1114.26



applicant was unable to appear before the trial Court and therefore, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur had issued a Non

Bailable Warrant against the present applicant. He further argues that

there is another offence which came to be registered against the present

applicant on 02.11.2024 and in relation to the 2 nd offence the applicant

came to be arrested on 29.09.2025.     He was released on bail only on

27.01.2026. He, thus, submits that the date on which the learned trial

Court has issued Non Bailable Warrant, the applicant was already in

custody in connection with the 2nd offence, and therefore, he was unable

to appear and attend the proceedings.    He submits that the applicant

will co-operate with the trial Court and will attend on each and every

dates of hearing before the trial Court. He prays for release of the

applicant on bail.



4.          The learned APP submits that though it cannot be a dispute

that on 20.10.2025 when the Non Bailable Warrant was issued by the

trial Court the applicant was in custody in connection with the 2 nd FIR

and the reason for issuance of the Non Bailable Warrant was not

singular absence of the applicant but the applicant was not attending

the Court proceedings from August, 2024. Thus, he submits that the

due to continue absence of the applicant, the trial Court was constrained

to issue Non Bailable Warrant. He, therefore, submits that in order to

secure the presence of the applicant was for the speedy conclusion of the

trial. The applicant be continued in custody as there is every likelihood
                                   3                       953ba1114.26



that he will again default his appearance before the learned trial Court

for conclusion of trial.    He, therefore, prays that the application be

rejected.



5.          I have heard both the learned Advocates as well as I have

also perused the order passed by the learned trial Court. No doubt, the

learned trial Court has rejected the application by specifically observing

that the applicant has been absent in the proceedings even before the

registration of the 2nd FIR, and therefore, merely because on date of

issuance of Non Bailable Warrant the applicant was in custody, cannot

be a ground that can be taken into consideration. The trial Court also

observed that pending trial, when the applicant was released on bail the

applicant had indulged himself in committing another offence and thus

the pendency of the application by remaining absent and also

committing another offence has been taken into consideration.              No

doubt, the conduct of the applicant is unpardonable, therefore, the

applicant has already been re-arrested and has been languishing in the

custody since for more than six months. Though, the learned trial Court

in its order dated 26.11.2025 has stated that the case can be disposed of

in next few months. The learned APP on instructions submits that in the

said trial only charges have been framed and there has been no further

progress in the trial. Thus, if the trial is not sufficiently progressed since

last nine months, then I do not find any reason as to why the applicant

should be continued in custody. The apprehension that has been raised
                                 4                       953ba1114.26



by the learned APP can be taken care by imposing stringent conditions

on the applicant, hence the following order :

                                 ORDER

         (i)    The Bail Application is allowed.

         (ii)  The applicants shall be released on bail in Crime No.
         64 of 2023 dated 30.01.2023 registered with Shrirampur
         Taluka Police Station, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahilyanagar
         for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323,
         504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on furnishing
         a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five
         Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount,
         subject to the following conditions :

                   (a)    The applicant shall attend each and every
                   date before the trial Court and in case for some
                   bonafide reason the applicant is unable to attend
                   the Court proceedings then appropriate exemption
                   application be preferred, which will be decided by
                   the trial Court on its own merits.

                   (b)   The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly,
                   contact, threaten, induce or influence the
                   informant or any prosecution witness and shall not
                   tamper with the prosecution evidence.

                   (c)    In case the applicant indulges himself and
                   remaining absent before the trial Court or even if
                   the applicant kept involved in any other offence
                   during the pendency of the trial, the prosecution is
                   at liberty to seek cancellation of this order.

                   (d)   The applicant shall furnish his current
                   residential addresses and mobile numbers to the
                   Investigating Officer and the trial Court within
                   seven days of release, intimate any change
                   forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer upon
                   prior written notice if further investigation is
                   required.
                           5                         953ba1114.26



             (e)    The applicant shall not leave India without
             prior permission of the trial Court and, if he
             possess passports, shall deposit the same with the
             trial Court within seven days of his release.

             (f)   The applicant shall not involve himself in any
             offence of a similar nature while on bail.

             (g)    Breach of any of the above conditions shall
             entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of
             bail.

             (h)   All observations in this order are prima facie
             and confined to the decision of this bail
             application. The trial Court shall decide the case
             independently on the evidence led before it. The
             Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.

             (i)   The application is disposed of.




                               (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)




mahajansb/