MANJU KATRAJ ALIAS KANTARAJ PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41171
                                                                     BR970ba1485-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGZEB

                           970 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1485 OF 2026

                               Manju Katraj Alias Kantaraj Pawar
                                             VERSUS
                                    The State Of Maharashtra
                                                ...
            Mr. Shaikh Nasimoddin Rafiyoddin, Advocate for the Applicant
            Mr. S. D. Ghayal, Addl. PP for the Respondent-State


                                  CAROM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                    Dated : 2nd September, 2026
            PER COURT :-

            1.       Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned

            APP for the State. With their assistance, I have also perused the entire

            charge-sheet that has been placed on record.


            2.       The present is the application seeking regular bail in

            connection with Crime No.131/2024 dated 27.04.2024 registered with

            Waluj Police Station, Taluka Gangapur and District Aurangabad for

            offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, 460 of the Indian Penal

            Code. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with the

            aforesaid offence on 29.09.2025.


            3.       The prosecution case, in brief, is that, during the night

            intervening 26.04.2024, the incident occurred at the house of the

            informant. The material forming part of the first information report

            shows that after the members of the family had retired for the night,



                                                                               1 of 9
                                                         BR970ba1485-26

somebody knocked the door at the midnight. The prosecution alleges

that the incident thereafter culminated in a nocturnal house breaking/

robbery, in the course of which, the victim was brutally assaulted and

the informant sustained injuries. There were three accused persons.

According to the prosecution, one of them was namely Ramesh Kale

(Since expired during the pendency of the proceeding). The informant

herself is an eye witness. The prosecution has also recorded         the

statement of several witnesses who have reiterated and corroborated

the version stated by the present complainant.


4.       The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that even

according to the informant, the actual assault upon the deceased and

upon the informant are specifically attributed to the co-accused

Ramesh Kale and no particular assault or other overt-act is attributed to

the present applicant. It was submitted that, the case against the

applicant rests substantially upon identification and recovery. The

applicant was arrested on 29.09.2025, whereas the Test Identification

Parade was conducted on 24.04.2026.


5.       The learned Advocate for the applicant argues that belated

Test Identification Parade will not be an evidence which should be

considered. To substantiate his argument, he relies upon the judgment

of this Court passed in the case of Atul Babulal Gajamal Vs. State of

Maharashtra reported in AIR online, 2021 Bombay 6263. He also


                                                                    2 of 9
                                                          BR970ba1485-26

relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal

No. 1008-1009 of 2007 in the case of Ankush Maruti Shinde and others

Vs. State of Maharashtra along-with several other matters.          Thus,

according to the learned Advocate, the identification, which was

conducted almost two years after the occurrence and about seven

months after the arrest of the applicant, seriously diminishing its

evidentiary value. The learned counsel further submits that the alleged

recovery was effected on 01.10.2025 i.e. after more than one year of

the occurrence. The weapons such as axe and knife are stated to have

been recovered at the instance of the applicant, however no blood

stains were reported on the said weapon. It was, therefore, urged that

the recovery does not materially connect the present applicant with the

alleged offence of murder. The applicant is about 23 years of age and

has already undergone approximately 11 months of incarceration and

the investigation has been completed; his detention is unnecessary. The

learned counsel, thus, prays for grant of bail on all the above grounds.


6.       The learned APP opposed the application. It was submitted

that the absence of a separate overt-act of assault cannot be considered

in isolation when the prosecution case is of conjoint participation of the

accused in a grave occurrence involving house breaking, robbery and

murder. The informant, who sustained injuries in the occurrence, has

identified the applicant. He argues that the nicety and veracity of the



                                                                     3 of 9
                                                             BR970ba1485-26

Test Identification Parade along-with the delay in conducting the Test

Identification Parade will be a matter of trial.   The material collected

by the prosecution at the stage of bail cannot be discarded merely

because the Test Identification Parade has been conducted belatedly.

The learned APP further argues that the other material collected during

the investigation including the statements of witnesses, mainly of the

witness Ganesh Nikam lend support to the prosecution version. It was

further pointed out that the weapon has been recovered pursuant to

the information furnished by the applicant after his arrest. The delay

attributed for carrying out the recovery weapons is not correct for the

reason that the weapons were hidden by the present applicant and the

present applicant himself came to be arrested on 29.09.2025 and the

recovery Panchanama is dated 01.10.2025. He further argued that the

applicant has criminal antecedents. The applicant being habitual

criminal, if released, may again make himself unavailable to the

process of law and considering the material and the nature of the

offence, it is submitted that the application be rejected.


7.       I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions

and the material referred to during the hearing. At the stage of

considering the application for bail, the court is neither expected to

conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence nor to pronounce upon

its ultimate admissibility or reliability. At the same time, particularly



                                                                      4 of 9
                                                         BR970ba1485-26

when the accusation concerns offence carrying severe punishment, the

court must examine whether the prosecution material, taken at its face

value, furnishes a reasonable and prima facie link between the

applicant and the occurrence.      In addition to this, the nature and

gravity of the accusation, the circumstances in which the       offences

alleged to have been committed, antecedents of the applicant, his

conduct during the investigation and the possibility of his remaining

unavailable for trial are also relevant consideration.


8.       The principal submission on behalf of the applicant is that

specific assaults are attributed to the co-accused, Ramesh Kale, and not

to the applicant. However, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to

isolate the act of inflicting the fatal injury from the remaining

prosecution case. The accusation against the applicant is not one of his

fortuitous presence at the spot. Prima facie, the prosecution seeks to

place him as one of the participants in an incident involving nocturnal

intrusion, robbery and homicidal violence.       Whether ultimately the

prosecution succeeds in establishing the requisite participation of the

applicant and the ingredients of each of the offences charged is a

matter for trial. For the limited purpose of bail, the material cannot be

discarded merely because the fetal assault is specifically attributed to

another accused.


9.       The injured informant has identified the applicant in the Test


                                                                    5 of 9
                                                            BR970ba1485-26

Identification   Parade.   This   is    undoubtedly   conducted    after   a

considerable lapse of time between the occurrence and the holding of

Test Identification Parade. The incident was occurred on 26.04.2024

whereas the parade was held on 24.04.2026.            However, an equally

material circumstance is that the applicant himself was arrested only on

29.09.2025. The parade was, thus, held after seven months of his

arrest. The delay is a circumstance which the trial court will necessarily

evaluate while assessing the evidentiary worth of the identification. The

Test Identification Parade is essentially corroborates and constitutes

substantive piece of evidence. Nevertheless, at the stage of bail, the

identification cannot simply be effaced from consideration particularly

when it forms part of other material which the prosecution proposes to

establish at the trial.    Whether the lapse of time has impaired the

reliability of the identification is a matter which ought not to be finally

adjudicated in this proceeding.        Presently, this Court takes the Test

Identification Parade as a material          piece of evidence which is

sufficiently corroborated with the fact of recovery of the weapons that

has been used in commissioning of the alleged offence. The facts in the

reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the applicant on the

authorities mentioned above are completely different and not

applicable to the present application.


10.      The prosecution further relies upon the recovery of axe and



                                                                      6 of 9
                                                         BR970ba1485-26

knife at the instance of the present applicant on 25.10.2025, shortly

after his arrest. The defence is justified in pointing out that recovery

was effected long after the occurrence and that no blood stains are

stated to have been detected upon the weapon. This circumstances may

have bearing upon the evidential weight eventually to be attached to

the recovery. Nevertheless, at this stage, the recovery pursuant to the

information attributed to the applicant constitutes as an additional

circumstance, which has to be considered together with, and not de

hors, the other material on record, within the permissible scope of

consideration at the bail stage. The evidentiary value of such recovery,

is a matter to be determined at the trial.


11.      There is another circumstance which assumes significance.

The offence was registered on 26.04.2024, whereas the applicant was

arrested only on 29.08.2025. The material placed before the court

indicates that the he was brought in connection with the present crime

after he apprehended in another case. Whatever explanation may

ultimately be offered for his whereabouts during the intervening

period, the facts remains that for a considerable length of time, after

registration of this serious offence, he was not available to the

investigating agency. This circumstance cannot be regarded as

insignificant while assessing the likelihood of the applicant remaining

unavailable for the trial if enlarged on bail.



                                                                   7 of 9
                                                             BR970ba1485-26

12.      Even the record disclose that the applicant has criminal

antecedents against him. Pendency of another criminal case can never

by itself justify indefinite detention nor can antecedents be treated as a

proof of guilt. However, the antecedents are legitimate considerations

while exercising desecration in a bail application, particularly when

they are considered along-with the nature of the accusations and the

applicants previous non availability to the Investigating Agency.        In

the case of Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 825 of

2026, decided on 11.02.2026), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

reiterated the relevance of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the

criminal antecedents of the accused, and other circumstances bearing

upon the proper exercise of discretion in matters of bail.


13.      The applicant’s young age and the period of approximate 11

months already undergone in custody have also been considered.

Those factors are undisputedly relevant. However, the custody

undergone so far is not of such extraordinary duration, having regard

to the nature of the accusation, as would presently override the prima

facie material and the other circumstances noticed above. This is

particularly so when the applicant was arrested substantially after

registration of the offence and the apprehension concerning his

availability for the proceeding cannot at this stage be regarded as

unfounded.



                                                                      8 of 9
                                                                     BR970ba1485-26

           14.      Thus, while the defence has raised issues concerning the

           absence of specific assault by the applicant, delay in holding the Test

           Identification Parade and absence of blood stains on the recovered

           weapons, those are matters which require appreciation during trial. At

           the present stage, the identification by the injured witness, the recovery

           attributed to the applicant, the surrounding prosecution material, his

           non availability during the investigation for a substantial period and

           the criminal antecedents to his discredit when cumulatively considered,

           constitute sufficient prima facie material against      him.      It would,

           therefore, not be appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail at this

           stage.


           15.      In view of the above, the Application stands rejected.




                                                       (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                                 9 of 9