SAMADHAN SURYAKANT BARVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38730


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           963 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1469 OF 2026

                                    Samadhan Suryakant Barve
                                              VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                                ...
            Mr. Salunke Sudarshan J, Advocate for the Applicant
            Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondents-State


                                   CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                     Dated : 27th August, 2026
            PER COURT :-

            1.       By this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

            Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant, who is the original accused no.1

            in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2025, arrested in connection with Crime

            No.0174 of 2025, dated 11.06.2025, registered with Sonpeth Police

            Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections

            103(1), 49, 35, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

            seeks regular bail.

            2.       The prosecution’s story, in brief, is that there has been

            longstanding family dispute between the family of the present applicant

            and the family of the deceased on account of ancestral property. On

            the date of incident i.e. 10.06.2025, the said family dispute was

            resolved amicably between the family members in a meeting which was

            held on the same day in the afternoon. It is alleged that after the

            dispute was resolved, the family members amicably mingled with each

            others and on account of the settlement, the present applicant, along


                                                                              1 of 8
with co-accused Datta, took the deceased to their agricultural field for

celebrating the settlement. It is alleged that the informant, when visited

the house of the deceased and enquired with the deceased’s mother as

to where the deceased has been, the mother informed that           as the

longstanding family dispute has been resolved, the deceased has gone

along-with the present applicant and co-accused Datta to the

agricultural field. The prosecution further alleges that after reaching

the agricultural field, the trio have consumed liquor by visiting the

nearby Bar and Restaurant and have come back to the agricultural

field. The prosecution, during the investigation, have come across

CCTV cameras of the Restaurant, wherein it is found that at around

4.30 p.m, the present applicant with co-accused Datta had again visited

the Bar and Restaurant and purchased a bottle of liquor and have left.

The prosecution, thus, alleges that when the deceased was in company

of the present applicant and co-accused Datta, he came to be assaulted

by knife on his neck and subsequently, the present applicant along-with

co-accused Datta have committed murder of the deceased. The

prosecution, thus, have alleged that commission of the aforesaid

offence against the present applicant and co-accused Data and six other

persons.

3.         The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that

out of the total eight persons, all the other accused are released on

either regular bail or anticipatory bail. He further argues that the case

of the present applicant is at par with the co-accused Datta and


                                                                    2 of 8
therefore, the present application for bail is mainly pressed on the

ground of parity.     He further submits that, it is the case of the

prosecution that, on the day of incident, the deceased was accompanied

with the present applicant as well as co-accused Datta and when both

of them were in company of deceased, the deceased has been

murdered. There is no direct evidence available on record to support

this prosecution theory. He submits that placing reliance on the CCTV

footage itself transpires that the deceased was not in the company of

the present applicant and co-accused Datta when they were seen in the

CCTV footage at the Restaurant. In absence of any direct evidence, it is

absolutely not possible to distinguish the role of the present applicant

with the role of the co-accused Datta. He further submits that save and

except the circumstance of recovery of      blood stained knife at the

instance of the present applicant, the entire prosecution investigation

as well as the material collected against the present applicant and the

co-accused is one and the same.      He thereafter submitted that the

present applicant also have criminal accidents in which three offences

are registered against him and pending which are absent as against the

co-accused Datta. He, however, argues that the presence of criminal

antecedents cannot accelerate the case of the prosecution to

conclusively show that the present applicant is responsible for

commissioning the murder of the deceased In such situation, he prays

that the applicant has made out the ground for grant of bail on the

ground of parity with the co-accused Datta.



                                                                   3 of 8
4.       On the contrary, the learned APP argues that the alleged

offence is grave and heinous in which, the present applicant has

hatched the conspiracy with the other co-accused persons to make a

farce in front of the entire family of the deceased that the dispute is

settled and then take the deceased to the agricultural field and after

making him consume liquor, commit the murder.         There is material

available on record that the deceased was last seen in the company of

the present applicant. The statement of one Sushilabai confirms the

fact that even after 4.30’s incident of visiting the Bar and Restaurant

in absence of the deceased, all three of them were found to be sitting in

the agricultural field. The witness claims that she has actually spoken

to the accused persons and deceased when she requested the deceased

to come home.      This substantiates that prior to the death of the

deceased, the applicant and the other co-accused were in company of

the deceased. He further argues that the recovery of knife, the weapon

which was used for commissioning of the murder, has been recovered

at the instance of the present applicant. Even the blood stained clothes

of the applicant recovered at his instance are also important piece of

evidence to show that involvement of the applicant in the

commissioning of the offence. In addition to this, he submits that the

applicant is habitual offender and therefore, there are three criminal

antecedents are pending against him, of which all the offence are

bodily injuries. He further submits that the bail order of this court

granting bail to Datta is based on factually incorrect observation,

wherein, the court has observed that the post      3.30 pm, the accused

                                                                    4 of 8
and deceased was not known to be in company of the present applicant

and the co-accused Datta.         He, thus, submits that taking into

consideration the higher role played by the present applicant, recovery

of knife at the instance of the present applicant, criminal antecedents

against the present applicant, the applicant does not deserve to be

released bail and hence, the application be rejected.

5.          I have heard both the advocate and have also perused the

entire material on record by way of charge-sheet.       The prosecution

story, in clear terms, has made out the case at least by conducing an

investigation to prima facie satisfy this court that the present applicant

and the other co-accused have proceeded along-with the deceased to

the agricultural field and subsequently thereafter have consumed liquor

together.     The material on record also indicates that after the

settlement meeting between the families was concluded, the present

applicant, co-accused Datta and the deceased, after proceeding to the

agricultural field at around 3.00 p.m., were together till 5.30 p.m. on

10.06.2025. The material also indicates that when all three of them

were together, they had consumed liquor in the agricultural field. The

prosecution has also sufficiently brought on record that the dead body

of the deceased was found by the witnesses between 6.00 p.m. to 6.30

p.m. on the same day. Thus, taking into consideration the proximity of

the material available on record to indicate the deceased in company of

the present applicant and co-accused Datta till the dead body of the

deceased is recovered is very close and therefore, at the time when the


                                                                     5 of 8
offence is committed, it is prima facie evident that all three of them

were together. Even if this material has been placed on record, the fact

still remains as to who actually have inflicted the assault of knife on the

neck. There is absolutely no material on record to show that there was

any prior conspiracy between the accused persons to commit the

alleged offence by making a farce of holding the settlement meeting

between the families and thereafter, under the pretext of celebrating

the settlement, to take the deceased to an agricultural field, make him

consume liquor and thereafter commit his murder.        In absence of any

such material, it cannot be said that there was any conspiracy between

the accused persons for commissioning offence as alleged. One more

important aspect that requires to be considered in the present case, on

the basis of the prosecution material itself, is that whether the incident

of assault has taken place on account of any sudden quarrel or on a

spur of the moment or whether there was any separate conspiracy

between accused no.1 i.e. present applicant and accused no.2. Thus,

in absence of this material as well, it is difficult to rope in the present

applicant and to hold him responsible for commissioning the murder

of the deceased.

6.       This court is conscious that the matter is yet to be taken up for

trial and the circumstantial evidence will have to be proved by the

provision after leading evidence.     However, prima facie, taking into

consideration the material of prosecution after investigation is complete

and coupled with the fact that the co-accused, who is similarly placed


                                                                      6 of 8
to that of the present applicant, is already        released on bail, I am

inclined to grant the present application and release the present

applicant on bail on the ground of parity with co accused Datta.

7.       In the aforesaid circumstances, following order is passed:

                                 ORDER

(i) The Bail Application is allowed.

(ii) Applicant Samadhan Suryakant Barve shall be released on bail in

     connection with Crime No.0174 of 2025, dated 11.06.2025,

     registered with Sonpeth Police Station, District Parbhani, for the

     offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 49, 35, 351(2), 3(5) of

     the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing a personal

     recognizance bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties

     in the like amount.

(iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, induce,

     threaten or influence any prosecution witness and shall not tamper

     with the evidence.

(iv) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless

     exempted by the trial Court.

(v) The applicant shall submit his Adhar and Pan Card to the

     Investigating Officer and detailed address and phone numbers of

     the applicant and two of the near relatives.




                                                                      7 of 8
           (vi) Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to the

               extent of this application and the trial court shall not be influenced

               by the same.



                                                      (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                                8 of 8