CHANDRAVIJAY HAUSAJI MANGNALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:40188
                                                -1-
                                                                          BA-1366-2026

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            BAIL APPLICATION NO.1366 OF 2026
                                         WITH
                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3003 OF 2026
                                    IN BA/1366/2026

              Chandravijay S/o. Hausaji Mangnale,
              Age : 54 years, Occu. : Service,
              R/o. Bhagyanagar, Nanded,
              Tq. & Dist. Nanded.                                    … Applicant.
                         Versus
              The State of Maharashtra,
              Through Police Station Officer,
              Bhagya Nagar Police Station,
              Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.                            … Respondent
                                             ..…
              Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Applicant
              Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent / State.
              Mr. R. D. Birajdar, Advocate for Applicant (Asstt. to APP) in
              APPLN/3003/2026
                                             .....

                                         CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 02nd SEPTEMBER 2026
              ORDER :
              1.          This is an application under Section 483 of the

              Bharatiya   Nagarik    Suraksha         Sanhita,   2023,   seeking    the

              applicant's release on regular bail in connection with Crime No.

              175 of 2026 registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, District

              Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2)

              and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4

              read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The applicant was

              arrested on 7th April, 2026. Investigation is complete and the

              charge-sheet has been filed.
                                  -2-
                                                        BA-1366-2026



2.         The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 6 th

April, 2026 and the First Information Report was registered on the

same day. There are five accused persons. The applicant is not

alleged to have been physically present at the place of occurrence

and no act of assault is attributed to him. The prosecution seeks to

implicate him as a conspirator in the murder. The applicant's wife,

who is also arraigned as an accused, has been released on bail on

medical grounds. Her release is noticed only as part of the record

and not as a ground of parity, since the present application is

required to be considered on the applicant's own role and the

material collected against him.


3.         In brief, the prosecution alleges that the murder was

carried out pursuant to a conspiracy involving the applicant's son,

who is referred to in the record as 'Golu' and who had been confined

in jail in connection with another offence since 1 st June, 2022,

accused Piyush Shinde, and the other accused. According to the

prosecution, Piyush Shinde acted as the intermediary through

whom the contract was arranged. The applicant and his wife had

visited their incarcerated son and the prosecution alleges that

discussions connected with the offence took place during such

visits. Reliance is also placed upon call-detail records and a

connectivity chart to contend that the applicant was in contact
                                 -3-
                                                         BA-1366-2026

with Piyush Shinde and was, therefore, part of the alleged

conspiracy.


4.         The charge-sheet refers to two persons as eye-

witnesses, namely Pravin Kachhwa, whose statement is recorded

on 11th April, 2026 and Gajanan Shivram Chintale, whose

statement is recorded on 11th April, 2026. Those witnesses speak

about the occurrence and the assailants at the spot. Neither of

them places the present applicant at the scene, identifies him as

one of the assailants, or attributes any overt act to him. The

defence has questioned the circumstances in which their

statements came to be recorded and, particularly in relation to the

second witness, the feasibility of his journey to the spot. Those are

matters for trial. For present purposes, what is material is that

even if the statements are accepted at face value, they do not

furnish a direct link between the applicant and the alleged

conspiracy.


5.         Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

applicant has been implicated only because he is the father of the

incarcerated accused. It was urged that his visits to his son were

regular, officially registered and conducted under the prison

administration's supervision. The applicant's mobile number was

one of the numbers recorded with the prison authorities for
                                 -4-
                                                         BA-1366-2026

regulated family communication. Every such call and visit was

capable of being monitored. No report of any suspicious

conversation or objectionable conduct during those visits has been

placed in the charge-sheet. A lawful meeting between a parent and

an incarcerated son, it was submitted, cannot by itself be treated as

proof of an agreement to commit murder.


6.         Learned counsel further submitted that there is no

recovery from the applicant. The money allegedly paid to Piyush

Shinde has not been recovered from him. No weapon, incriminating

article, document or electronic device yielding an incriminating

exchange is shown to have been seized from him. The statements

of the eyewitnesses do not refer to him. No test identification

parade concerning him was held, though, in fairness, no such

exercise would arise when the prosecution itself does not place him

at the scene.


7.         Attention was invited to the communication and call

material at pages 188, 204, 356 and 479 of the compilation. It was

submitted that the list of persons registered for contact with the

jail inmate does not itself incriminate the applicant. The last call

referred to in the material at page 204 is dated 25 th March, 2026,

whereas the offence occurred on 6th April, 2026. The table at page

479, according to the defence, shows only six contacts between the
                                  -5-
                                                         BA-1366-2026

applicant and Piyush Shinde. It does not disclose the content or

purpose of those calls. It was also submitted that the broader

network diagram appearing thereafter does not correspond with

the underlying tabulated data insofar as the applicant is

concerned.


8.           Learned counsel lastly relied on the applicant's medical

record dated 23rd March, 2026. The report records regional wall-

motion abnormality and reduced left ventricular function, with an

ejection fraction of about 40 per cent. It was submitted that this

circumstance, read with the absence of recovery, absence of

presence at the scene and the tenuous electronic link, warrants his

release on bail.


9.           Learned APP opposed the application. The learned APP

submitted that the offence is grave and was the outcome of a pre-

arranged conspiracy. Since a conspiracy is ordinarily hatched in

secrecy, direct evidence of the agreement cannot be expected. The

Court must consider the cumulative effect of the applicant's prison

visits, his contacts with Piyush Shinde, and the connectivity among

the accused. The learned APP relied upon the statements of

Sandeep Kalyankar, the brother of the deceased, and Kumar

Narangole, the CCTV footage of the prison visits, and the call-detail

charts and network diagram appearing in the charge-sheet.
                                -6-
                                                        BA-1366-2026



10.        Upon the prosecution being called upon to identify the

precise material connecting the present applicant with the

agreement to commit the offence, reliance was placed upon the

applicant's visits to his son and the calls with Piyush Shinde. The

learned APP fairly did not dispute that the applicant was neither

an assailant nor present at the place of occurrence. Beyond the

aforesaid visits and telephone contacts, no further independent

circumstance was pointed out from the charge-sheet as directly or

inferentially connecting the applicant with the alleged agreement.


11.        The   parameters    governing   the   exercise   of   bail

jurisdiction are settled. The Court must consider the nature and

gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the

accused, the nature of the supporting material, the severity of the

possible punishment, criminal antecedents, flight risk, the

likelihood of tampering with witnesses or evidence, and the

possibility of obstructing the trial. At the same time, the Court

examines only whether reasonable or prima facie grounds emerge

from the charge-sheet; it must not conduct a threadbare

assessment or record findings that may prejudice the trial. The

Supreme Court has recently reiterated these principles in Zeba

Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 1006, while referring

to Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768 and the earlier settled line
                                 -7-
                                                         BA-1366-2026

of authority.


12.        There can be no doubt that the accusation concerns a

grave offence carrying the most severe punishment. Gravity is an

important consideration, but it does not dispense with examination

of the role attributed to the individual applicant and the quality of

the prima facie link shown against him. Where the prosecution

case against a person is not of participation in the assault but only

of being a party to a conspiracy, the relevant inquiry at the bail

stage is whether the collected material, viewed cumulatively and at

face value, reasonably indicates his participation in the alleged

agreement. Mere association, relationship or opportunity to

communicate cannot automatically substitute that link.


13.        The settled character of the offence of conspiracy also

requires caution in both directions. Since conspiracies are

generally conceived in secrecy, an express agreement need not be

proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from proved

circumstances and coordinated conduct. Yet the circumstances

relied upon must have a discernible nexus with the object of the

alleged conspiracy. Suspicion arising from family relationship or

acquaintance may justify investigation; after the investigation is

complete, continued detention must rest on material which, prima

facie, advances the matter beyond mere suspicion.
                                 -8-
                                                          BA-1366-2026



14.        Tested on that standard, the principal circumstance is

the applicant's visitation of his son in prison. The prosecution's own

record indicates that the son had been confined since June 2022 in

another crime and that the applicant was a regular, registered

visitor. The visits were not clandestine. They occurred through the

prison system and were capable of supervision and recording. The

charge-sheet material shown to the Court does not disclose any

recorded conversation, report by a prison official, unusual visit

pattern, or conduct during a visit bearing upon the murder

committed on 6th April 2026. In the absence of such an additional

circumstance, the neutral fact of a father visiting his incarcerated

son cannot, at this stage, bear the entire weight of a prima facie

inference of conspiracy.


15.        The electronic material does not materially strengthen

that link. The table at page 479, as explained during the hearing,

shows the applicant in contact with Piyush Shinde on about six

occasions. However, neither the dates and duration of all those

calls nor their proximity to the commission of the offence were

demonstrated so as to disclose a concerted pattern. The last call

specifically referred to was dated 25th March, 2026. There is no

transcript, intercepted conversation, message, location correlation

or subsequent conduct placed before the Court to show that the
                                      -9-
                                                                BA-1366-2026

calls related to the proposed offence. Telephone contact may be a

relevant circumstance, but, without temporal and contextual

linkage, it remains equivocal.


16.        There is also substance in the submission concerning

the apparent inconsistency between the tabulated call data at page

479 and the network diagram relied upon thereafter. The table

appears to show the applicant's contact with Piyush Shinde,

whereas the diagram projects a wider connectivity. When the

prosecution was asked to demonstrate from the underlying call list

the applicant's individual contacts with the other accused and their

proximity to the occurrence, no such further link was pointed out.

A visual network representation cannot be assigned greater

evidentiary value than the underlying call records from which it is

said to be derived.


17.        Any statement made by a co-accused to the police could

legitimately provide a lead for investigation. Its use as substantive

material against another accused is, however, governed by the law

of evidence. At the stage of bail, the Court need not pronounce

finally upon    admissibility;      nevertheless, where         the   alleged

disclosure is not followed by a recovery, discovery, electronic

communication,        financial   trail     or   some   other   independent

circumstance connecting the applicant to the alleged agreement,
                                   -10-
                                                             BA-1366-2026

the disclosure by itself cannot supply the missing nexus for

continued pre-trial detention.


18.         The remaining circumstances also require notice.

Nothing has been recovered from the applicant. The alleged

contract money has not been traced to or from him. No eyewitness

places him at the scene. No incriminating article or communication

is attributed to him. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet

has been filed. Thus, the applicant is no longer required for

custodial   investigation.   The     applicant's   cardiac    condition,

supported by the report predating his arrest and reflecting an

ejection fraction of approximately 40 per cent, is a relevant

additional circumstance, though the Court does not grant bail

principally on medical grounds.


19.         This Court is conscious that proof at trial may emerge

from the cumulative effect of circumstances and that each

circumstance need not independently establish guilt. The present

assessment is nevertheless confined to whether the charge-sheet

presently discloses sufficient prima facie material to justify

continued incarceration of this applicant pending trial. Even when

the circumstances relied upon are considered together familial

relationship, regulated prison visits and a limited number of calls

with Piyush Shinde the necessary proximate link with the alleged
                                 -11-
                                                        BA-1366-2026

agreement remains tenuous. The prosecution has not identified the

content, context or coordinated conduct which converts those

otherwise equivocal circumstances into prima facie participation

in the conspiracy.


20.         The seriousness of the offence cannot be understated;

nor can it alone cure the absence of a sufficiently proximate

individual link. Bail is not an adjudication of innocence.

Conversely, pre-trial detention cannot operate as punishment

merely because the principal offence is grave. The legitimate

concerns of the prosecution can be protected by stringent

conditions restraining the applicant from contacting witnesses or

co-accused, requiring regular attendance before the trial Court,

and restricting departure from the Court's jurisdiction without

permission.


21.         In these circumstances, and without expressing any

final opinion on the admissibility or probative value of the

prosecution evidence, a case for grant of bail is made out. All

observations in this order are prima facie, confined to this

application, and shall not influence the trial. Hence, the following

order:

                               ORDER

      (i)   The Bail Application is allowed.
                              -12-
                                                       BA-1366-2026




(ii)    The applicant - Chandravijay S/o. Hausaji Mangnale,
        shall be released on bail in Crime No.175 of 2026
        registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, District
        Nanded, on executing a personal recognizance bond in
        the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties
        in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(iii)   The applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact,
        threaten, induce or promise any prosecution witness
        and shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(iv)    The applicant shall not communicate with any co-
        accused concerning the facts of the present crime. This
        condition shall not prevent communication strictly
        necessary    for   conducting     the   defence    through
        advocates.

(v)     The applicant shall attend the trial Court on every date
        unless his presence is specifically exempted and shall
        cooperate with the expeditious conduct of the trial.

(vi)    The applicant shall report to Bhagyanagar Police
        Station on the first Monday of every month between
        10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon for six months, and
        thereafter as and when directed by the trial Court.


(vii)   The applicant shall furnish his current residential
        address and active mobile number to the Investigating
        Officer and the trial Court before release and shall
        intimate any change within seven days.
                                         -13-
                                                                  BA-1366-2026

          (viii) The applicant shall not leave India without prior
                  permission of the trial Court and shall deposit his
                  passport, if any, before that Court within one week of
                  his release. If he has no passport, he shall file an
                  affidavit to that effect.


          (ix)    If the applicant breaches any condition, the prosecution
                  shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.


          (x)     It is clarified that the trial Court shall decide the case on
                  its own merits, uninfluenced by the prima facie
                  observations contained in this order.


          (xi     Bail application is disposed of accordingly.


          (xii)   In view of disposal of bail application, Criminal
                  Application No.3003 of 2026 is also disposed of.



                                                (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                       JUDGE




Tandale