DHARAMSING REHANJYA KHARDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:42037
                                               -1-
                                                                  954-BA-1560-2026

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1560 OF 2026

                              DHARAMSING REHANJYA KHARDE
                                          VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                              .....
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Abhay M. Taksal a/w Mr. Gautam J.
              Pahilwan
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. S.A. Gaikwad
                                              .....

                                          CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                          DATED : 9th SEPTEMBER 2026
              ORDER :

              1.        This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

              Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection

              with Crime No.01 of 2026 registered with Mhaswad Police Station,

              District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections

              103(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The

              applicant is accused No.1. He was arrested on 3 rd January, 2026

              and is in custody since then. Investigation is complete and

              chargesheet has been filed. His earlier application for bail came to

              be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada on

              13th May, 2026.



              2.        The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Vinod

              Popat Patale was the son-in-law of the applicant and was residing
                                -2-
                                                    954-BA-1560-2026

with his wife and children at the house of the applicant at village

Tulaja. On 30th December, 2025, Vinod was found dead in the

sugarcane field of Deepak Navalsing Girase at Bhute Akaspur.

Initially an accidental death was registered. After post-mortem, the

medical officer opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to

throttling. The FIR was thereafter lodged on 2 nd January 2026

against an unknown person for an unknown reason.


3.       According to the prosecution, the applicant and the

deceased had a dispute in relation to purchase of a white Force

Cruiser vehicle. It is alleged that the deceased had financially

contributed towards the vehicle, whereas the vehicle came to be

registered in the name of another son-in-law, co-accused Sanjay

Ratansingh Patale. This is projected as the motive for the offence.

The prosecution further relies principally upon the statement of

Ramesh Gujrya Vasave, who claims that during the relevant night

he saw the applicant, his wife, his son Sambarsing and son-in-law

Sanjay near a white Cruiser vehicle in the vicinity of a nala and

that the applicant asked him to leave the place. The prosecution

seeks to connect this circumstance with the subsequent discovery

of the dead body in the sugarcane field. The learned Sessions Judge

principally relied upon this circumstance and the alleged motive

while rejecting bail.
                                -3-
                                                      954-BA-1560-2026

4.      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no

eyewitness to the assault and that the entire case rests upon

circumstantial evidence. The FIR admittedly names no accused.

There is no recovery or discovery at the instance of the present

applicant. It is submitted that the statement of Ramesh was

recorded subsequently and his version is itself doubtful. Though

Ramesh claimed to have seen the accused together, he failed to

identify accused No.3 in the test identification parade. Insofar as

the applicant is concerned, Ramesh already knew him, both being

residents of the same locality, and therefore the identification of

the applicant in a test identification parade does not add any

substantive circumstance.


5.      Learned counsel further relies upon the statement of

Jamuna, wife of the deceased and daughter of the applicant. It is

submitted   that   her   statement    materially   cuts   across   the

prosecution version regarding the applicant's presence near the

nala. She states that during the night, when her husband had not

returned, she took the mobile phone of her father from the place

where he was sleeping and attempted to call the deceased. On the

following morning she asked both her father and brother about her

husband and they thereafter went in search of him. It is also

pointed out that the forensic examination of the crime scene
                                 -4-
                                                     954-BA-1560-2026

yielded no potential exhibit connecting the applicant with the

offence. The applicant is about 68 years of age, has no criminal

antecedents, investigation is complete and no further custodial

interrogation is required. Accused No.3 Sanjay has already been

enlarged on bail by this Court on 7th July 2026.


6.       Learned APP opposes the application. It is submitted that

the death is clearly homicidal, the medical opinion being that the

deceased died due to asphyxia caused by throttling. Ramesh had

seen the applicant and the other accused near the white Cruiser

vehicle at about 3.00 a.m. in suspicious circumstances. The

applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and the deceased was

residing in his house. The dispute concerning the purchase and

registration of the Cruiser provides motive. According to the

prosecution, the accused initially intended to dispose of the body

near the nala but, after being noticed by Ramesh, carried it further

and dumped it in the sugarcane field. Considering the gravity of the

offence and the possibility of influencing witnesses, the application

is sought to be rejected.


7.       I have considered the rival submissions and gone through

the charge-sheet. There can be little dispute at this stage that the

death of Vinod was homicidal. The medical material indicates

death due to asphyxia consequent to throttling. That circumstance,
                                -5-
                                                    954-BA-1560-2026

however, establishes the nature of death; it does not, by itself,

identify the assailant. The question at the stage of bail is whether

the material collected during investigation provides reasonable

prima facie grounds connecting the present applicant with the

homicidal act or with a common design to commit the offence.


8.      The Supreme Court has reiterated in case of State of

Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh reported in (2025) 11 SCC 799 that

while deciding bail the Court is not expected to conduct a

meticulous appreciation of evidence or record findings which may

prejudice the trial. At the same time, particularly in a serious

offence, the Court must examine the material collected during

investigation and ascertain whether there exists a prima facie or

reasonable ground to believe in the involvement of the accused.

The nature of accusation, gravity of the offence, role attributed to

the accused, antecedents, possibility of tampering, likelihood of

absconding and the overall necessity of continued detention are

relevant considerations. In case of State of Karnataka v. Sri

Darshan reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, it was held that,

equally, merely describing a prosecution case as one resting upon

circumstantial evidence cannot by itself constitute a ground for

bail if the circumstances collected during investigation prima facie

form a complete chain.
                                 -6-
                                                         954-BA-1560-2026

9.       Tested on these parameters, the prosecution material

against the present applicant requires closer scrutiny. The FIR was

registered against an unknown person and did not express any

suspicion against the applicant. This circumstance is not by itself

decisive, since the identity of an offender may legitimately emerge

during investigation. What assumes significance, however, is the

nature of the material by which the applicant was subsequently

connected    with   the   offence.     The   principal    incriminating

circumstance is the statement of Ramesh Vasave that he saw the

applicant and the other accused near a white Cruiser vehicle

during the night.


10.      At this stage, the statement of Ramesh cannot simply be

discarded. Nevertheless, its evidentiary value must be viewed

together with the remaining circumstances. Ramesh does not claim

to have witnessed the assault upon the deceased. Nor does he state

that he saw the deceased in the vehicle or that he saw the accused

carrying or disposing of the dead body. His version, therefore, at its

highest, places the applicant in suspicious circumstances near a

vehicle at an unusual hour. The further prosecution theory is that

the accused were then transporting the dead body and, upon being

noticed, altered their intended place of disposal is inferential.

Prima facie, the charge-sheet does not disclose any direct
                                    -7-
                                                          954-BA-1560-2026

circumstance      witnessed    by         Ramesh    establishing         such

transportation or disposal by the applicant.


11.     There is another circumstance which cannot be ignored at

the bail stage. Jamuna, the wife of the deceased, was admittedly

staying in the same house. Her statement records that during the

night, when she found that her husband had not returned, she took

her father's mobile phone from the place where he was sleeping

and attempted to contact her husband. On the following morning,

she asked her father and brother about the deceased and they went

out to search for him. This part of her statement prima facie stands

in tension with the prosecution's assertion that the applicant was

outside near the nala at the relevant time. Which of these versions

ultimately deserves acceptance is plainly a matter for trial. At the

bail stage, however, the existence of such material emanating from

the wife of the deceased herself is relevant while assessing the

strength and continuity of the circumstantial chain.


12.     The     alleged   motive    also    does   not,   at   this   stage,

substantially   strengthen    the    prosecution     case      against    the

applicant. The statement of the jeweller shows financial dealings

concerning ornaments and money for purchase of a four-wheeler.

It also records that when Vinod and Jamuna subsequently came

with money, the applicant instructed the jeweller to return the
                                 -8-
                                                     954-BA-1560-2026

pledged ornaments to them. The further assertion in that

statement that the murder occurred because the vehicle had been

registered in the name of the other son-in-law is information which

the witness states he learnt from the police; it is not a fact within

his personal knowledge. Thus, while the vehicle transaction may

furnish a background circumstance, the material presently shown

does not permit the alleged motive to be treated as so compelling as

to bridge the other gaps in the prosecution case.


13.     It is also significant that there is no recovery or discovery

attributable to the present applicant. The forensic crime-scene

examination records that no potential exhibit was found at the

crime scene. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet

has been filed. The material objects and the vehicle relied upon by

the prosecution have already been secured. The applicant is stated

to be 68 years old and no antecedents are pointed out.

Consequently, his continued custody is no longer required for the

purpose of investigation.


14.     The fact that accused No.3 Sanjay has been released on

bail is an additional circumstance, though parity cannot be applied

mechanically and the role of each accused must be independently

examined. Even independently of parity, however, the material

discussed   above    persuades    me    that   continued    pre-trial
                                  -9-
                                                     954-BA-1560-2026

incarceration of the present applicant is not warranted. The

seriousness of the accusation is undoubtedly substantial, but

gravity cannot substitute for examination of the prima facie

material connecting a particular accused with the offence.


15.       These observations are confined to the consideration of

the present bail application. The prosecution must have full

opportunity to establish the circumstances relied upon by it at

trial, and nothing observed herein shall be construed as a final

opinion regarding the credibility of Ramesh, Jamuna or any other

witness, or regarding the existence or otherwise of the alleged

motive.


16.       In the circumstances, the application deserves to be

allowed. Hence, the following order:-


                               ORDER

  (i)     The Bail Application is allowed.

  (ii)    The applicant – Dharamsing s/o Rehanjya Kharde, in
          connection with Crime No.1 of 2026 registered with
          Mhaswad Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the
          offences punishable under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5)
          of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, shall be released on
          bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two
          solvent sureties in the like amount.

  (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
                                     -10-
                                                        954-BA-1560-2026

           inducement, threat or promise to any prosecution witness
           and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

    (iv)   Considering that the principal witnesses are from the
           same village/locality and some of them are related to the
           applicant, the applicant shall not enter village Tulaja,
           Taluka Taloda, District Nandurbar, except for attending
           the trial, for a period of six months from his release,
           without prior permission of the trial Court. He shall
           furnish to the Investigating Officer and the trial Court the
           address at which he will reside during the said period and
           shall not change the same without prior intimation.

    (v)    The applicant shall attend the trial regularly unless
           exempted by the trial Court and shall cooperate with its
           expeditious conclusion.

    (vi)   The applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
           without prior permission of the trial Court and shall
           surrender his passport, if any, before the trial Court.

    (vii) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
           prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

    (viii) It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
           prima facie and confined to the decision of this Bail
           Application. The trial Court shall decide the case
           independently and uninfluenced by these observations.

    (ix) Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.



                                            (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                   JUDGE
Tandale