DINESH ANANDA CHAUDHARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38766
                                              -1-
                                                                  939-BA-1159-2026

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1159 OF 2026

                               DINESH ANANDA CHAUDHARI
                                           VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                             ......
              Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Rani Kailas Agrawal
              APP for Respondent - State : Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh
                                              .....

                                         CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                         DATED : 20th AUGUST 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.         Heard learned Advocate for the applicant as well as

              learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.



              2.         The investigation is complete. Charge sheet has been

              filed and the same is annexed to the present application. I have

              perused the entire charge sheet with the assistance of both the

              learned advocates.



              3.         The present application is filed for regular bail in

              connection with FIR bearing No. 0911 of 2025, registered with

              M.I.D.C. Police Station, Jalgaon for offences punishable under

              Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of BNS. The applicant has been in

              custody in connection with the above offence since 19 th December,

              2025. At this juncture, it is also important to note that the co-
                                -2-
                                                    939-BA-1159-2026

accused in the present case, namely Bhushan Balu Patil, has been

released on bail by this Court by order dated 29th July, 2026. The

prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Nilesh was missing

since 15th December, 2025, when he left his house at 6:15 p.m.

after informing the informant that he was proceeding to meet the

present applicant. However, as the deceased did not return, the

informant tried calling his mobile phone, which was continuously

switched off. The informant along with the other family members

took search of the deceased in the nearby vicinity. However, on

that day, he was not found. On 16th December, 2025, the

motorcycle on which the deceased had left was found near an

agricultural field in village Ramdevwadi. However, as the deceased

was not found, the informant registered a missing complaint

bearing No.196 of 2025. The informant has also informed the

police that the deceased was friends with the present applicant and

the other co-accused Bhushan Patil. A dispute had taken place

between the present applicant and deceased, of which the

informant had knowledge.



4.         On 19th December, 2025, the body of deceased Nilesh

was recovered from a gunny bag floating in Nevhare Dam. The

prosecution alleges that the applicant and accused No.2 had called

Nilesh to the field behind the Sankat-mochak Nevhare Maroti
                                 -3-
                                                     939-BA-1159-2026

temple and there, the deceased was strangulated with a rope. After

his death, his dead body was placed in a gunny bag, which was then

carried on a motorcycle and and same was thrown in the dam. The

post-mortem report records ligature marks associated with neck

injuries and a subdural haematoma. The cause of death opined by

the doctor is “asphyxia due to ligature strangulation” and the

manner of death is stated to be homicidal.



5.          Learned Advocate appearing for applicant submitted

that the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial

evidence and that there are no eye-witnesses. Neither there is any

material available on record to show that the applicant was last

seen together with the deceased Nilesh. She also argued that there

is an absolute absence of any incriminating material, including any

WhatsApp communication between the deceased and the present

applicant. The statement of the deceased's father only records that

the deceased, while leaving the house on 15th December, 2025, had

informed him that he was going to meet the applicant and does not

establish that they actually met. The alleged motive concerning a

female co-worker and the money which was transferred to the

account of the deceased are not supported by any corroborative

piece of evidence, in spite of the fact that the investigation is now

complete.
                                -4-
                                                      939-BA-1159-2026




6.         She also argued that the alleged confessions during the

missing enquiry by the police of the present applicant and the co-

accused or even the disclosures made by the present applicant

during custodial interrogation are inadmissible. She further

submitted that the dead body was found at a public place which is

accessible to the general public and was found visibly floating in

the water in a gunny bag, it was not discovered at the instance of

the applicant. She lastly relied upon the order passed by this Court

granting bail to the co-accused Bhushan Patil and thus argued that,

on the ground of parity and having regard to the applicant's age of

21 years, absence of any antecedents and the custody already

undergone since 19th December, 2025, coupled with the fact that

the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is already filed,

the continuation of the applicant's custody is unwarranted. Hence,

she submitted that, the application be allowed and the applicant be

released on bail.



7.         Learned    APP   opposed    the   bail   application   and

submitted that there is no dispute that Bhushan Balu Patil has

been released on bail, but submitted that the material against the

present applicant is distinguishable. The role and involvement of

the present applicant in the alleged offence are of larger
                                 -5-
                                                     939-BA-1159-2026

significance as compared to the role of the co-accused Bhushan

Balu Patil. While distinguishing the role of the present applicant,

she submits that the deceased had specifically taken the name of

the present applicant while leaving the house on 15 th December,

2025, and furthermore, the dispute which is being referred by the

informant is between the deceased and the present applicant. The

co-accused Bhushan Balu Patil had no personal enmity with the

deceased. Moreover, the learned APP relied upon the statement of

Bhushan Balu Patil, who states that on 16th December, 2025, the

applicant while appearing tense, personally narrated to this

witness that there was a quarrel in the field and due to the said

quarrel by making use of a rope, the neck of the deceased was

strangulated. Thereafter, his dead body was placed in a gunny bag

and after transporting it to the dam, it was disposed of. Even the

abandonment of the motorcycle was done by the accused persons.

She argues that this amounts to an extrajudicial confession to a

private witness and not a confession to a police officer. She further

submitted that a rope of almost about 5 feet, which was allegedly

used in the commission of the offence, has been recovered at the

instance of the present applicant. She also relied upon the

statements concerning the attempt of the present applicant along

with the co-accused to flee towards Surat by procuring another

handset and by giving a false explanation regarding the journey
                                 -6-
                                                      939-BA-1159-2026

and furthermore, the statements of the witnesses showing that the

applicant had been absent from his workplace since 15 th December,

2025 are sufficient to establish the conduct of the present

applicant and his involvement in commission of the heinous

offence.



8.           She even placed reliance on the medical evidence by

way of post-mortem report and submits that even the medical

opinion of homicidal death by ligature strangulation also supports

the prosecution case. This also assures the involvement of present

applicant as it correlates with his own extrajudicial confession

made to a private person. She thus argues that the law of parity

cannot be applied in favour of the present applicant and therefore,

as there is ample evidence available on record connecting the

present applicant in connection with the alleged heinous offence,

the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. She further

argues that the applicant was arrested on 19 th December, 2025 and

even the argument that the applicant has been in custody for

longer period and there is no possibility of an early trial, cannot be

sustained.



9.           Taking into consideration the arguments of both the

learned Advocates and the material that has been placed on
                                  -7-
                                                        939-BA-1159-2026

record, one aspect that is not disputed at this stage is the death of

the deceased being homicidal death by ligature strangulation.

Equally true that, presence of circumstantial evidence and the

burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance

and complete the necessary chain to establish the guilt of the

accused persons. For the limited purpose of bail, however, the

material is not confined to the deceased stated intention to meet

the applicant. The statement of Vishal Patil attributes to the

applicant a detailed narration made on the day following the

occurrence, regarding the manner in which both accused persons

allegedly strangulated deceased Nilesh and disposed of his body

and his motorcycle. Its voluntariness, truthfulness and ultimately,

its evidentiary worth will have to be tested at the time of trial. It is

nevertheless an alleged extrajudicial confession to a private

person, and not a confession to a police officer, and cannot be

discarded at the threshold at this stage. The conduct of the

applicant   in   allegedly   hurriedly   departing,   giving   a   false

explanation for the journey and his employment related conduct

after the occurrence are not a proof of guilt by themselves but are

definitely prima facie material which operates as supporting

circumstances.



10.         The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant is
                                   -8-
                                                      939-BA-1159-2026

right to some extent when she argues that the alleged confession

made during police enquiry or custody cannot be used as

substantive evidence. The body being already visible in the water,

has also not been treated as a discovery made by the applicant. The

recovery of the rope stands on a different legal footing, though only

to a limited extent. At this stage, the prosecution material discloses

that the applicant led the police and the panch witnesses to the

place from where a 5 feet rope with a knot was produced. Its

admissible extent and evidentiary value remain matters for trial.

There is presently no demonstrated forensic match of the rope

with the alleged injuries. However, the recovery of the rope can be

treated only as a prima facie circumstance consistent with and not

as proof of the medical opinion.



11.        The most important aspect that this Court needs to

consider the fact that the co-accused Bhushan Balu Patil has been

released on bail and this requires anxious consideration. The

prosecution story and the material no doubt point towards the

involvement of both the accused in the alleged offence and they

have participated in placing the rope around the neck of deceased

and disposing of the body. The record also attributes separate

extrajudicial disclosures to each of them through different

witnesses. The applicant cannot, therefore, be denied bail merely
                                -9-
                                                    939-BA-1159-2026

by describing the accusation as grave nor can he allegedly

disclosed by itself constitute a distinguishing feature. The

immediate dispute and alleged enmity are attributed to the present

applicant, whereas Bhushan Patil is not alleged to have any

personal dispute with the deceased. More importantly, the article

alleged to be the instrument of strangulation was recovered

pursuant to the memorandum of the present applicant. The

identity of deceased and the bankbook documents found with

Bhushan are incriminating circumstances against him, but their

recovery does not erase the distinct material against the applicant.

When the alleged motive, recovery, independent disclosure and

post-occurrence conduct are read together, this Court is unable to

hold that the applicant stands on the same factual footing merely

because the ultimate overt act is alleged to have been committed

jointly. The plea of parity does not displace the individual

assessment required in the application.



12.        The charge-sheet has been filed, custodial interrogation

is no longer required and the age of the applicant is young.

However, taking into consideration the length of custody, it cannot

be said that the applicant has been in custody for such a period as

would amount to long incarceration. On the cumulative and strictly

prima facie assessment, the prosecution has placed material,
                                    -10-
                                                      939-BA-1159-2026

which establishes the prima facie involvement of the present

applicant in the alleged offence.



13.         In light of above, the application for bail stands

rejected.



14.         Needless to say that, the observations made in the

present order are prima facie only to the extent of dealing with

present application and they shall not be taken into consideration

by the Trial Court while conducting the trial.




                                           (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                  JUDGE




Tandale