Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

NAVNATH KAKASAHEB NIHALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Allowed

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prolonged pre‑trial detention and his satisfactory conduct outweigh the risks posed by the serious nature of the charges.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for bail to Navnath Kakasaheb Nihal, accused of murder and related offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant had been in custody for over two years, with a period of temporary bail during the COVID‑19 pandemic, and the trial had not yet commenced despite charges being framed in 2019. The prosecution argued that the seriousness of the crime, the alleged motive, and the attempt to destroy evidence warranted denial of bail, while the defence highlighted the long pre‑trial detention, the applicant’s good conduct while on temporary bail, and the purely circumstantial nature of the evidence. The court noted the improbability of a near‑term trial and the applicant’s lack of misuse of liberty, and concluded that bail should be granted subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed, with the applicant released on a personal bond and various reporting and non‑interference conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case involving Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC.
  • Whether the delay in trial and the applicant’s period of temporary bail justify granting bail despite the seriousness of the offence.
  • Whether the presence of circumstantial evidence and alleged motive affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Section 439 CrPC
  • murder
  • IPC Sections 302, 201, 34
  • pre‑trial detention
  • circumstantial evidence
  • Maharashtra

Judgment

                                                                45.BA.1457.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1457 OF 2026

       Navnath Kakasaheb Nihal                                Applicant /
                                                           .. Orig. Accused
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra                                .. Respondent
                                  ....................
        Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w. Ms. Juhi Kadu and Ms. Savvy Kolhekar,
         Advocates for Applicant.
        Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent – State.
                                     ......…...........
                                    CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                    DATE         : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.        Heard Mr. Vagal, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.

       Newton, learned APP for Respondent – State.


       2.        This is an Application under Section 439 of the Criminal

       Procedure Code, 1973 seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.417 of

       2018 registered with Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, District Pune

       for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34

       of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).


       3.        Applicant is indicted alongwith two other accused persons on

       the charge of committing the murder of the deceased victim. All parties

       before me are young offenders in a sense, as the incident in question

       appears to have arisen out of a relationship issue involving the sister of

       one of the accused persons which was brought to the notice of the

                                                                            1 of 5
                                                       45.BA.1457.2026.doc


deceased victim. As regards the act in question, the evidence is purely

circumstantial. The victim was strangled with a rope and his body was

thrown from the bridge as alleged by the prosecution by the accused

persons.


4.         Applicant was arrested on 09.07.2018 and was granted

temporary bail on account of the COVID-19 pandemic on 30.03.2020.

He voluntarily surrendered himself in September 2025. During the

period when he was on temporary bail, he attended the Court

proceedings and did not misuse the liberty granted to him.


5.         Mr. Vagal would submit that if the time spent on temporary

bail is excluded, Applicant would otherwise be incarcerated in two

tranches for a little over 2 years and 10 months. Trial has not

commenced, though charges have been framed long back even after so

many years since 2019.


6.         The commencement and/or conclusion of the trial in the

near future appears prima facie improbable and therefore Mr. Vagal

would also persuade the Court to consider the case of the Applicant for

bail on the aspect of long incarceration. He would also persuade the

Court to consider that there is no motive brought forth by the

prosecution qua the Applicant in question and the Applicant alongwith

the other two co-accused persons has been arrested only on the ground

of presumption as initially the FIR was registered against unknown


                                                                   2 of 5
                                                        45.BA.1457.2026.doc


persons by the prosecution.


7.        PER CONTRA, Ms. Newton, learned Prosecutor would submit

that considering the dispute with regard to the sister of the Applicant

having interacted with the deceased victim, the accused persons have

committed the present crime. She would submit in all fairness that

only circumstantial evidence is prima facie put forth by the

prosecution, but that a strong motive is established in view of the

aforesaid reason and the fact that the Applicant being friends with the

other co-accused persons, he is alleged to have committed the present

crime in the aforesaid circumstances. Considering the severity of the

crime and also the fact that the accused persons attempted to destroy

the evidence by throwing away the body of the deceased victim from

the bridge, she would submit that the gravity of the offence ought to

be considered for rejection of bail.


8.        On the aspect of long incarceration, she would submit that

what Mr. Vagal has submitted is correct and agrees to the fact that the

Applicant has never misused the temporary bail granted to him in any

manner.


9.        After having considered the submissions advanced by the

learned Advocate Mr. Vagal and the aforesaid timeline which is not

being repeated and reiterated for the sake of brevity, I am of the

opinion that the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.


                                                                    3 of 5
                                                         45.BA.1457.2026.doc


10.      Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and

finding, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to            the

following terms and conditions:-

         (i)   Applicant – Navnath Kakasaheb Nihal is directed to be

               immediately released from prison in connection with

               CR. No.417 of 2018;


         (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

               furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five

               Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like

               amount;


         (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

               Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, once every month, on

               the first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to

               12:00 p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter

               shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;


         (iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial

               and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,

               unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek

               unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall

               entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;


         (v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

               without prior permission of the Trial Court;

                                                                     4 of 5
                                                                                         45.BA.1457.2026.doc


                                          (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or

                                               tamper with the evidence in any manner;


                                          (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed

                                               of   their    current residential   address and mobile

                                               telephone number and shall forthwith inform the

                                               Investigating Officer of any change in their residential

                                               address or mobile telephone number, as and when such

                                               change occurs; and


                                          (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid

                                               conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to

                                               the Applicant.


                                11.       It is clarified that the observations made in this order are

                                limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any

                                observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on

                                the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being

                                uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made

                                hereinabove in this order.


                                12.       Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.




                                                                           [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

    Ajay
             Digitally signed
             by AJAY
AJAY         TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK      UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE   Date: 2026.09.08
             20:14:25 +0530




                                                                                                     5 of 5


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.