Bombay High Court

RUPESH NAMDEV GHADAGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposal: Rejected
Bench: SACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DESHMUKH

Holding

The bail application was rejected.

Summary

Rupesh Namdev Ghadage applied for regular bail in a case registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the murder of a victim who was the son of the informant. The prosecution alleged that the applicant had an illicit relationship with the informant and conspired to kill the victim, presenting a prima facie case supported by witness statements and motive. The applicant argued that the co‑accused had already been released on bail and that there was no direct evidence against him. The court examined the precedents on bail for serious offences, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence, risk of flight, and the distinct footing of the applicant compared to the co‑accused. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the presence of motive, and lack of any change in circumstances, the court rejected the bail application.

Issues considered

The applicant's entitlement to bail despite a prima facie case of murder under Section 363 IPC
Whether the applicant is entitled to parity with the co‑accused who was released on bail
Whether the delay in trial and lack of fresh grounds justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 363

Subjects

bail
serious offence
prima facie evidence
parity
delay
flight risk
murder
Indian Penal Code

Judgment

1
30-BA-139-2026 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 139 OF 2026

Rupesh Namdev Ghadage
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.
Mr. Yash Fadtare, advocate for the applicant
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th MARCH 2026.
P.C.

1. The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R. No.

249/2023 dated 06/05/2023 registered with Vita Police Station,

District Sangli for offences punishable under Sections 363 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. It is the case of prosecution that the informant is mother of

deceased. On 06.05.2023 at about 3.00 p.m. son of the informant left

the house. As the victim did not return home, informant went to the

shop to inquire about her son. After searching at several places, since

the victim was not traceable, informant approached Vita Police

Station and lodged report. During investigation, it was revealed that

the informant had illicit relations with the applicant and the victim

was hurdle in their love relations. Therefore, the informant and the

applicant hatched conspiracy to eliminate the victim. Accordingly,

Iresh
2
30-BA-139-2026 (CR).DOC

applicant, in connivance with the informant abducted the victim

with intention to commit murder and took him to a well on Lengare-

Dhorle road and threw the victim in the well.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant

is innocent and falsely implicated in the crime. The co-accused is

released on bail by this Court vide order dated 29/08/2024. The

investigation is complete and there is no direct evidence against the

applicant. Hence, prayed to allow the application.

4. Learned APP has opposed the application that the role of the

applicant is distinct than that of the co-accused who is released on

bail. Hence, applicant is not entitled for parity. Considering the

evidence on record, a prima facie case is made out against the

applicant. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

5. Having heard the submissions from both sides and upon

perusal of the record including the charge-sheet prima facie indicates

that the applicant allegedly had illicit relations with the

informant/co-accused and thereby, committed murder of her son.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar

and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors. [(2004)7 SCC 528], while laying

down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail in serious offences like

murder, has observed as under :

Iresh
3
30-BA-139-2026 (CR).DOC

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is

very well settled. The court granting bail should

exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not

as a matter of course. Though at the stage of

granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and

elaborate documentation of the merit of the case

need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate

in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding

why bail was being granted particularly where the

accused is charged of having committed a serious

offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would

suffer from non-application of mind. It is also

necessary for the court granting bail to consider

among other circumstances, the following factors

also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the

severity of punishment in case of conviction and

the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with

the witness or apprehension of threat to the

complainant.

Iresh
4
30-BA-139-2026 (CR).DOC

support of the charge. (See Ram Govind

Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Puran v.

Rambilas.)

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Vs.

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 670) has laid down the

principle that bail can be refused when the material produced by

prosecution establishes a clear prima facie case. The Court should not

conduct a mini-trial; it should only examine whether the available

evidence links the accused to the alleged offense.

8. Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of UP

through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005)8 SCC 21], has held that

the Court must evaluate the prima facie evidence showing the

applicant's involvement. If such evidence is credible and supports the

accusations, bail may be refused. As stated earlier, the prosecution

has collected overwhelming evidence against the present applicant.

9. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pralhad Singh

Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi [(2001)4 SCC 280], held that on satisfaction of

prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, the bail can

be denied.

10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ram Govind

Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh [(2002)3 SCC 598], has held that a

Iresh
5
30-BA-139-2026 (CR).DOC

judicial discretion in granting bail must not be exercised whimsically,

especially in heinous offences.

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar

Vs. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010)14 SCC 496], has held that the

mechanical grant of bail reflects non-application of mind, and

outlined eight crucial factors to be considered, including reasonable

ground for belief in guilt, nature of evidence and possibility of justice

being thwarted.

12. In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP [(2016)15 SCC 422], the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Courts must not casually ignore

the criminal antecedents of the accused and must remain vigilant in

heinous offences. The same principles were again re-affirmed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi) [(2018)12 SCC 129].

13. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Satpal Singh Vs. State of

Haryana [(2020)2 SCC 118] that bail ought to to be withheld, if

prosecution has established the ‘last seen together’ circumstance

alongwith corroborative material.

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Amit

Kumar [(2017)13 SCC 751], has held that delay especially in cases

involving serious offences, cannot by itself be a ground for bail. In the

present case, the trial is progressing and further the prosecution has

Iresh
6
30-BA-139-2026 (CR).DOC

demonstrated the efforts to conclude the trial. Considering the

seriousness of the offences involved, the overwhelming material weighs

against the applicant.

15. In view of the aforesaid precedents, it is pertinent to note that

there is a statement of witness prima facie supporting the theory of illicit

relationship between the informant and the present applicant. The

deceased child was last seen with the applicant and is later on

discovered to be drown. Given the history of illicit relationship, there is

motive on the part of the applicant.

16. As far as parity is concerned, perusal of the record indicates

that the co-accused/informant is the mother of the deceased and is

entitled for statutory protection being lady. Thus, applicant stands on a

different footing than that of the co-accused.

17. Further perusal of records indicates that this is a successive

bail application. Earlier application of the applicant came to be

withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. Apart from delay in trial, no fresh

grounds or change in circumstances are raised in the application, as such

the applicant is not in a position to demonstrate change, much less,

substantial one.

18. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion and considering

the gravity of the offence, as well as potential punishment for the crime,

coupled with likelihood of the applicant fleeing away or evading the

Iresh
7
30-BA-139-2026 (CR).DOC

trial, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

19. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

IRESH Digitally signed by IRESH
MASHAL

MASHAL Date: 2026.03.24 18:23:52
+0530

Iresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…