RAMA UTTAM GANGURDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                   1                       82ba1537.26



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  82 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1537 OF 2026

                          RAMA UTTAM GANGURDE
                                   VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                      ...
     Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shinde Sanket Sunil (Through Legal Aid)
                 APP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.V. Hange
                                      …


                                CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                DATE : 24.08.2026
PER COURT :


1.            Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties.


2.            This application is filed for regular bail in connection with

Crime No. 271 of 2025 registered with Nandurbar Taluka Police Station,

District Nandurbar dated 09.08.2025 for the offences punishable under

Sections 103 (1) of the BNS.


3.            The informant is the son of the present applicant and the

deceased was the wife of the present applicant. The allegations in brief

as cited in the First Information Report are that the present applicant

was allegedly involved in the relationship with one woman and on

account of that there used to be regular quarrels in between the present

applicant and the deceased.       On one occasion it is alleged that the

present applicant had threatened the deceased by stating that he will kill

the deceased and the present informant and thereafter will get married
                                2                      82ba1537.26



with a woman with whom he has relations and will bring her home. On

the faithful day i.e. on 06.08.2025, when the informant went away for

agricultural work, at that time at about 3.00 p.m., in the afternoon,

when the present applicant and the deceased were alone at the

residence, he received a phone call from the present applicant stating

that the deceased had fallen from the bed and due to which she had

sustained injuries and had expired. The informant when upon reaching

home found that the deceased was lying on the floor and the blood was

oozing out from her nose and mouth. There were also marks of abrasion

on her neck. Upon inquiry as to how the deceased had died, the

applicant informed that while he was away for some work and when he

came back, he saw the deceased on the ground and therefore, according

to the applicant, the deceased must have fallen from the bed and have

sustained injuries and then died.   The informant however, on seeing

abrasion marks on the neck of the deceased and the blood was oozing

out from the nose and mouth, had reason to believe that the applicant

had committed murder of the deceased and hence lodged present FIR.


4.         The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that this is

not a case of the eye witnesses and the FIR has been lodged against the

present applicant merely on the suspicion that because of the applicant

was maintaining relationship with some third woman, he must have

committed murder of the deceased. He argued that the applicant was

not even in the vicinity and had noted the death of the deceased only

upon his return to the house and found the deceased lying on the floor.
                                 3                       82ba1537.26



He submits that apart from mere suspicion there is no material available

on record to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. He

submits that the applicant is 50 years of age and has been in jail since

last more than one year. He therefore, prays for releasing the applicant

on bail.


5.          Per-Contra, the learned APP submits that the informant in

the FIR has specifically stated that the applicant and the deceased were

alone in the house. He submits that the presence of the abrasion marks

on the neck and the blood was oozing out from the mouth as well as

nose of the deceased, clearly suggest that the deceased had not fallen

from bed and the death was caused due to physical abuse and thereafter

by throttling. He submits that the medical evidence by way of the

postmortem report also suggest that the death is by throttling and not

due to falling of the deceased from the bed.


6.          He further relies upon the CDR report, which shows that the

present applicant’s Mobile Phone location was found in vicinity and not

out side the vicinity. The theory that has tried to be put up by the

applicant does not supports him and on the contrary it is countered by

the CDR reports.


7.          He argues that the offence is heinous. The murder has been

committed in very brutal manner, and therefore, the applicant does not

deserve any discretionary relief and hence the application be rejected.
                                   4                         82ba1537.26



8.          I have heard both the learned Advocates and also perused

the entire copy of the charge-sheet. The investigation papers disclose the

statements of several witnesses who have corroborated the theory of

extra marital affair of the present applicant. The statements also narrate

the fact that on account of extra marital affair there used to be regular

quarrels   between   the   deceased    and   the   present   applicant.    The

statements of the witnesses also show that the informant’s wife

attempting to take the deceased for medical treatment, at that time the

present applicant was opposing the same by stating that there is no

necessity of taking the deceased to hospital and her dead body should be

directly taken to the cremation for final rites. The conduct of the

applicant opposing the medical treatment is an important conduct which

should be taken into consideration.      It is true that there is no eye

witness to the actual assault, however, absence of the eye witnesses

cannot itself be decisive with the occurrence of the incident which has

taken within privacy of the residential house. The equally important fact

is that the deceased and the applicant were spouse. This fact cannot be

overlooked, particularly when the prosecution’s primary objection is to

establish the alleged incriminating circumstances. Section 106 of the

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short BNS) cannot be employed for filling the

gap in the prosecution case. It assumes relevance after the prosecution

relieves the case. The foundational fact from which a reasonable

inference may prima-facie arise.


9.          In the present case the prosecution does not rely upon the
                                  5                       82ba1537.26



relationship of husband and wife. The material at this stage, prima-facie

indicates that the applicant and the deceased were only present in the

house at the relevant time. The applicant’s immediate explanation was

that the deceased had fallen from bed, however, the medical findings in

the postmortem report indicates that due to forced throttling there were

external as well as internal injuries to the neck, including the fracture to

muscle hyoid and hemorrhage to the muscle due to which there was

infiltration of the blood, prima facie though the medical evidence is not

consistent with the ordinary explanation fall from the bed. As stated

above the CDR report has been collected by the prosecution, which

prima-facie places location of the applicant in the concerned village at

the relevant time. The another important aspect that has been pointed

out by the learned APP is in respect of the seizure of the clothes allegedly

bearing blood stains. This is one of the other circumstances.


10.          Taking into aforesaid circumstances and the material

collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, this Court

is not inclined to allow the present applicant to be released on bail.

Hence the application stands rejected.




                                      (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)




mahajansb/