Bombay High Court

PURUSHOTTAM NAMDEO MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: ABHAY S WAGHWASE

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the application.

Summary

The applicant, Purushottam Namdeo More, sought regular bail for offences under Sections 302, 504, 309, 498‑A, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging false implication and claiming that the incident arose from sudden provocation. The FIR, lodged by the applicant’s own daughter, described an assault on the mother with a knife, leading to her death by hemorrhagic shock. The prosecution highlighted the seriousness of the murder charge, the existence of multiple eye‑witnesses, and that the trial had already commenced with three witnesses examined. The court noted the risk of the applicant tampering with the key witnesses, who were his daughters, and the fact that the trial was underway. Consequently, the bench rejected the bail application, finding no sufficient ground to grant liberty pending trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a murder case when the trial has already commenced
Whether the allegation of false implication by the applicant is sufficient to merit bail
Whether there is a real risk of witness tampering justifying denial of bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 309, 323, 34, 498-A, 504

Subjects

bail
murder
Indian Penal Code
false implication
witness tampering
trial commencement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:32272


                                                                             BA-1380-2026
                                                   -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1380 OF 2026

                       Purushottam Namdeo More                      … Applicant

                             Versus

                       The State of Maharashtra,
                       Through the Police Inspector,
                       Sakri Police Station, Dist. Dhule.           … Respondent
                                                    …..

                 Dr. Anagha N. Pedgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant (Through
                 Legal Aid).
                 Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent-State.
                                                .....

                                          CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                          Reserved on         : 30.07.2026
                                          Pronounced on       : 31.07.2026

                 ORDER :-

                 1.    Applicant seeks grant of regular bail on account of his arrest in

                 Crime No.39 of 2023 registered at Sakri Police Station, District Dhule

                 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 309, 498-A, 323

                 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.


                 2.    Bail is urged on the ground that, there is false implication. That

                 applicant was arrested on 11.02.2023 and since then, i.e. since almost

                 three and half years, he is behind the bars. That, in fact, present

                 application is first bail application after chargesheet. That, informant
                                                           BA-1380-2026
                                  -2-

is the very daughter of applicant and deceased. The incident

happened on account of sudden provocation. Knife is already

recovered from the spot. Therefore no recovery is to be made at

applicant’s instance. Learned counsel pointed out that, in the

postmortem report there is injury to the abdomen and going by the

nature of injury, there is possibility of use of hard and blunt object,

but here, no such article was put to use and therefore she questions

the very cause of death. Lastly she submitted that, chargesheet is filed

in June 2023. For above reasons, bail is urged for.



3.    Learned APP pointed out that, applicant is involved in a serious

offence like murder of his wife. That, including informant, there are

other direct eye witnesses. Now, charge is already framed on

01.02.2025, three witnesses are already examined and as trial has

commenced, and there being only 22 witnesses, there is possibility of

trial coming to an end in coming months.



4.    Perused the FIR dated 05.02.2023 which is at the instance of

very daughter of the applicant. She has reported that, there used to be

quarrels between her parents, due to which her mother was staying

with three daughter at Gawliwada in a rented room and her father

was residing separately, but he was troubling them. She reported that
                                                        BA-1380-2026
                                  -3-

on 05.02.2023, around 07.00 p.m., her father followed them to the

rented room and while informant and her sisters were waiting on the

front veranda/porch, they heard shouts of their mother and they saw

father assaulting mother by means of sharp knife. On above report,

crime has been registered.



5.       Postmortem report shows that, cause of death is due to

hemorrhagic shock due to poly-trauma. Informant seems to be eye

witness and she has lodged report against her own father i.e. present

applicant.



6.       Now learned APP made a statement that trial has commenced

and three witnesses are already examined. Consequently, when trial

has commenced, this Court is not inclined to grant bail, more

particularly in view of apprehension expressed by prosecution about

misuse of liberty to tamper witnesses who are very daughters of

deceased and applicant. Consequently, I proceed to pass the following

order:

                                ORDER

                      The application is rejected.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…