Bombay High Court
SANJAY RATANSING PATALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ABHAY S WAGHWASE
Holding
The court held that regular bail must be granted as the evidence is circumstantial, the investigation is complete, and no substantial reason exists to deny bail.
Summary
The applicant, Sanjay Patale, was arrested on 3 January 2026 in connection with a murder alleged to have occurred on 30 December 2025, for which he was named as accused No.3 in Crime No. 001 of 2026. The prosecution alleged that the victim died from throttling and that the accused was present at the scene, based largely on the testimony of a witness, Ramesh Vasawe, who claimed to have seen the accused in a torch‑light. The defence argued that the investigation was complete, the charge‑sheet had been filed, and the evidence was purely circumstantial and unreliable, warranting regular bail. The State opposed bail, contending that the offence was serious, involved a possible monetary dispute, and that the accused might misuse his liberty. The court examined the FIR, the witness statement, and noted the lack of direct evidence, concluding that there was no compelling reason to keep the accused detained. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed, with a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 and conditions restricting tampering of evidence, entry into the village of Shrikhed, and attendance at trial dates.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted in a murder case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita when the evidence is primarily circumstantial.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing, justifying denial of bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the court are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- circumstantial evidence
- regular bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- conditions of bail
- investigation completed
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26398
BA-1217-2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1217 OF 2026
SANJAY S/O RATANSING PATALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
MHASAWAD POLICE STATION
…..
Mr. G. J. Pahilwan, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent-State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 06.07.2026
Pronounced on : 07.07.2026
ORDER :
1. Applicant seeks grant of regular bail on account of his arrest in
crime no. 001 of 2026 of registered at Mhasawad Police Station,
District Nandurbar for offence punishable under Sections 103(1),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
2. Pointing to the date of arrest as 03.01.2026, learned counsel
submitted that applicant is shown as accused no.3. That, initial FIR
was against unknown person for committing offence for unknown
reasons. That, there are allegations of throttling. That, though TI
parade is conducted, applicant is not identified. That investigation is
over and chargesheet is already filed. That, witness Ramesh Vasawe
claims to have seen applicant in the torch light in the pitch dark of the
BA-1217-2026
-2-
night. That, applicant has no connection with the deceased. That
witnesses have hearsay information and there is no cogent and
reliable evidence. That, initially AD was registered. Now investigation
being over and chargesheet being filed, according to learned counsel,
no purpose would be served by further detention of the applicant.
3. Learned APP opposed on the ground that, investigation
revealed that serious offence of murder is committed. That, there was
some quarrel in the backdrop of money transaction. That, there is
death due to throttling. That, applicant is likely to misuse liberty and
for above reasons, bail is opposed.
4. Perused the papers. FIR dated 02.01.2026 is by Shakil Popat
Patle and he reported that on 30.12.2025 he received message that in
the sugarcane crop of one Dipak Girase, his brother Vinod was found
dead. After getting postmortem done and on receiving opinion about
death due to asphyxia due to throttling, he reported police about
murder of his brother by unknown persons for unknown reasons.
5. There seems to be statement of one Ramesh recorded on
03.01.2026 wherein he stated that, on 29.12.2025 around 3.00 a.m.
when he was returning from his field to his house, he happened to see
BA-1217-2026
-3-
one white Cruiser vehicle parked near his house and he further claims
to have seen Dharamsing @ Damnya Rehanjya Kharde, his wife
Rikshabai and their son Sambarsing and present applicant Sanjay in
the torch light and at that time, Dharamsing allegedly abused him in
filthy language and therefore he went away. He claims that, on
30.12.2025 in the afternoon he learnt that, son in law of Dharamsing
was found lying in the field of Dipak Girase. He further reported that
Police Patil called him on 03.01.2026 to ask him if he knew anything
about the murder, upon which he narrated the incidence which he
witnessed on the night of 29.12.2025 while returning from the field
and accordingly, Sarpanch passed the said information to police.
6. Thus, apparently, though this person Ramesh had seen present
applicant Sanjay, he has not reported to police immediately on
30.12.2025 when there were talks in the village about murder of son-
in-law of Dharamsing. There is no direct evidence and case seems to
be based on circumstantial evidence. Learned APP, though submitted
that alleged murder is in the backdrop of some money transaction,
she could not satisfy as to what was the exact nature of transaction.
Now investigation is over and chargesheet is filed. Charge is said to be
not yet framed and therefore there is uncertainty over the process of
trial. In the light of above discussion, applicant deserves the relief as
BA-1217-2026
-4-
prayed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
I. The application is allowed.
II. Applicant SANJAY S/O RATANSING PATALE be released on
bail in connection with Crime No. 001 of 2026 registered at
Mhasawad Police Station, District Nandurbar, on executing Personal
Bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, on the
following conditions :
[a] The applicant shall not tamper prosecution evidence.
[b] The applicant shall not enter the village Shrikhed, taluka
Shahada District Nandurbar till conclusion of trial.
[c] The applicant shall regularly attend each and every effective
date before the trial court.
III. The application is accordingly disposed off.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
Checking your session…