MOGARABEN AJITBHAI VALVI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41572
                                                                       RB923-1612-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1612 OF 2026

             1.   Mogaraben W/O Ajitbhai Valvi
                  Age 41 years, Occcu: Household
                  R/o Amoda Tq. Kukaramunda Dist. Tapi
                  (Gujrat)
             2.   Kantilal s/o Dashrath Padvi                  ...   Applicants
                  Age 50 years, Occu: Agri
                  R/o Shelwai Tq. Taloda Dist. Nandurbar

                  VERSUS

                  The State of Maharashtra                     …     Respondent
                  Through P.I. Taloda Police Station
                  Tq. Taloda Dist. Ahmednagar


            Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Applicants
            Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the Respondent State


                                   CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                     Dated : 8th September, 2026
            O R D E R:-


            1.       The applicants seek their release on regular bail under Section

            483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection

            with Crime No.173 of 2026 registered with Taloda Police Station,

            District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1),

            61(2), 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

            2023. Both the applicants were arrested on 28 March 2026.

            Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed on 17

            June 2026.


            2.       The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that deceased Kantilal

                                                                              1 of 10
                                                           RB923-1612-26


Motiram Valvi left his house on 25 March 2026 on his motorcycle

stating that he was going to meet an Advocate at Nizar. As he did not

return, search was undertaken. On the following day, his motorcycle

was noticed near an agricultural field and his dead body was

subsequently found in the agricultural field. The medical material

indicates that the deceased had sustained injuries and that the death

was homicidal, caused by strangulation.


3.       The First Information Report dated 26 th      March 2026 was

initially registered against unknown persons. During investigation, a

supplementary statement of the informant came to be recorded, and

the present applicants were implicated. According to the prosecution,

the deceased was repeatedly telephoning applicant No.1 and was

insisting upon maintaining relations with her and threatening that, in

the event of her refusal, he would disclose their alleged relationship to

her husband and children. It is alleged that applicant No.1, on account

of such harassment, conspired with applicant No.2 and, on the night of

25th   March 2026, the deceased was called to the relevant place,

assaulted and strangulated. The prosecution further alleges that mobile

phones used by the deceased and applicant No.1 were thereafter

thrown into the Tapi river for causing disappearance of evidence.


4.       Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the entire

prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence and that there is no

eyewitness to the occurrence. It is submitted that the FIR was initially

against unknown persons and the applicants came to be implicated

                                                                    2 of 10
                                                         RB923-1612-26


subsequently. According to him, although the prosecution relies upon

certain telephone calls between applicant No.1 and the deceased, the

CDR material at the highest indicates telephonic contact and does not

establish that the applicants and the deceased were together at the

place and time of occurrence.


5.      Learned Advocate further submits that the prosecution

describes certain mobile numbers as secret numbers allegedly used by

applicant No.1 and the deceased, but the mobile instruments

themselves have not been recovered. The broken pieces of a SIM card

are stated to have been recovered at the instance of applicant No.1;

however, according to the applicants, there is no material establishing

that those pieces pertained to the SIM card of the particular number

allegedly used for communication between applicant No.1 and the

deceased.


6.      It is further submitted that a beer bottle was shown to have

been recovered from the roadside at the instance of applicant No.1. A

stone was found at the spot, but no blood stains were detected upon it.

The clothes of both applicants were also seized, but no blood stains

were found thereon. The rope or string allegedly connected with

strangulation was found at the scene and was not recovered from either

applicant. According to learned Advocate, none of these circumstances

individually or cumulatively completes a prima facie chain connecting

the applicants with the homicidal death.



                                                                 3 of 10
                                                          RB923-1612-26


7.       So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, it is submitted that the

prosecution relies upon the circumstance of purchase of liquor and

recovery of a motorcycle. It is contended that there is no CDR or other

technical material sufficiently establishing that applicant No.2 was

present with applicant No.1 and the deceased at the place of

occurrence at the material time. It is therefore urged that his

implication is even more remote.


8.       Learned APP opposed the application. He submits that the

prosecution has brought on record sufficient circumstances which,

when considered cumulatively, establish a strong prima facie case. He

relies upon the statements of Devendra Valvi, Kisan Bhagat Singh Valvi

and other witnesses to contend that applicant No.1 had complained

about the deceased repeatedly telephoning and harassing her. These

statements, according to the prosecution, corroborate the motive

attributed to applicant No.1.


9.       Learned APP further relies upon the telephone records

showing frequent calls between applicant No.1 and the deceased,

including communication proximate to the date of occurrence. He

submits that the location material, recovery of the broken SIM pieces at

the instance of applicant No.1, recovery of the beer bottle, purchase of

liquor attributed to applicant No.2 and recovery of the motorcycle

constitute interconnected circumstances which cannot be viewed in

isolation. He points out that the post-mortem examination establishes

death by strangulation and that a rope/string was recovered from the

                                                                  4 of 10
                                                           RB923-1612-26


place of occurrence. Considering the gravity of the offence and the

material collected during investigation, he seeks rejection of the

application.


10.      I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the

investigation papers. There can be little dispute at this stage that the

death was homicidal. The question, however, is whether the material

presently collected creates a sufficiently strong prima facie nexus

between these applicants and the homicidal act so as to justify their

continued incarceration pending trial.


11.      It is equally necessary to bear in mind that the prosecution

case is one of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence cannot

be discarded at the stage of bail merely because there is no eyewitness.

The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan & Ors., 2025

INSC 979, has reiterated that strong prima facie circumstantial and

scientific material, particularly in a prosecution for murder, is required

to be duly considered even at the stage of bail. At the same time, the

exercise at this stage cannot be converted into a trial or a final

adjudication upon the evidentiary value of each circumstance.


12.      Tested on this principle, the prosecution does place some

material indicating a motive insofar as applicant No.1 is concerned.

Statements of certain witnesses indicate that applicant No.1 had

complained that the deceased was repeatedly contacting and troubling

her. There is also material regarding telephonic communication


                                                                   5 of 10
                                                           RB923-1612-26


between applicant No.1 and the deceased. These circumstances cannot

be ignored.


13.      Motive and telephonic contact, however, are not by themselves

sufficient in the facts of the present case. What assumes significance is

whether there is material connecting the applicants to the actual

occurrence during the relevant period. During the hearing, the

prosecution was called upon to indicate whether the location records

showed applicant No.1 and the deceased to be together at about the

material time. The material shown does not, at least prima facie,

establish such a precise location. Tower-location evidence necessarily

requires cautious appreciation, particularly where persons reside or

move within adjoining villages covered by the relevant towers. There is

presently no material shown which places both applicants and the

deceased together at the precise place of occurrence at the relevant

time.


14.      There is also no circumstance of last seen together. No witness

states that the deceased was seen proceeding with or in the company of

either applicant immediately before his death. The prosecution theory

as to how applicant No.1 contacted applicant No.2, how the two

thereafter travelled together and how the deceased was called to the

place of occurrence is substantially sought to be reconstructed from the

investigation material. At the stage of bail, the Court is required to see

whether that reconstruction has adequate independent support.



                                                                   6 of 10
                                                              RB923-1612-26


15.      The recoveries also require to be considered in their proper

perspective. The prosecution relies upon broken pieces of a SIM card

stated to have been discovered at the instance of applicant No.1.

However, the material presently shown does not satisfactorily establish

that the broken SIM was the very SIM corresponding to the secret

mobile number upon which the prosecution relies. The two mobile

phones which, according to the prosecution, were thrown into the river

have not been recovered.


16.      A beer bottle has been shown as discovered at the instance of

applicant No.1 and there is material indicating consumption of liquor

by the deceased. That circumstance may form a link for consideration

at trial. Nevertheless, the bottle by itself does not establish participation

of either applicant in the homicidal act.


17.      A stone was found at the spot. Admittedly, no blood stain was

detected on it. The clothes of both applicants were seized; no blood

stains connecting them with the deceased were found thereon. The

rope/string relied upon by the prosecution was found at the place of

occurrence and not pursuant to a discovery from either applicant.

Though the medical evidence establishes strangulation, the recovery of

a rope from the scene establishes the manner of death rather than,

without something more, the identity of the assailants.


18.      The statement of the witness relied upon by the prosecution

regarding purchase of liquor by applicant No.2 undoubtedly constitutes


                                                                      7 of 10
                                                           RB923-1612-26


a circumstance against him. The motorcycle is also relied upon. But

even if these circumstances are accepted at their face value at this

stage, there remains a material gap between purchase of liquor or use

of the motorcycle and participation in the murder. No forensic material

has been pointed out which connects applicant No.2 with the body, the

scene or the alleged instrument of strangulation.


19.      Another circumstance which requires notice is the statement

of Jayshree Valvi. Her statement indicates that she herself was in

telephonic contact with the deceased on the date of the incident and

claims to have been in a relationship with him. The evidentiary effect of

that statement is a matter for trial. It is not necessary to draw any

conclusion from it at this stage. It nevertheless demonstrates why the

circumstance of telephonic communication with the deceased, standing

alone, cannot be treated as determinative of participation in the

homicide.


20.      The Court is conscious that at the stage of bail the prosecution

is not required to establish a complete chain in the manner required for

conviction after trial. Nor would it be permissible to undertake a

meticulous dissection of the evidence. Nevertheless, even for formation

of a prima facie view, the circumstances must possess sufficient

proximity to the alleged act. The existence of motive, repeated

telephone calls and some recoveries undoubtedly creates suspicion

against applicant No.1. The material against applicant No.2 is

comparatively weaker. Suspicion, even where substantial, must be

                                                                   8 of 10
                                                          RB923-1612-26


distinguished from a prima facie evidentiary nexus justifying prolonged

pre-trial detention. In the present case, the clothes of the applicants

and the stone do not bear blood stains connecting them to the

deceased, and the mobile phones which form an important component

of the prosecution theory have not been recovered.


21.     The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been

filed. The applicants have remained in custody since 28 th March 2026.

Their further custodial interrogation is therefore not required. No

criminal antecedents have been pointed out. The apprehension of

influencing witnesses or interfering with the trial can be adequately

addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.


22.     The observations made herein are confined to consideration of

the present bail application and are prima facie in nature. The learned

Trial Court shall decide the case on the evidence led before it without

being influenced by any observation made in this order.


23.     Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the

material collected during investigation, the absence at this stage of a

sufficiently proximate circumstance connecting the applicants with the

actual homicidal occurrence, completion of investigation and filing of

the chargesheet, I am of the view that continued incarceration of the

applicants pending trial is not warranted. Hence, the following order:

                               ORDER

(i)   Bail Application No.1612 of 2026 is allowed.

                                                                 9 of 10
                                                                      RB923-1612-26

           (ii)   Applicant No.1 – Mogaraben w/o Ajitbhai Valvi and Applicant
                  No.2 – Kantilal Dashrath Padvi shall be released on bail in
                  connection with Crime No.173 of 2026 registered with Taloda
                  Police Station, District Nandurbar, on executing P.R. Bond of
                  Rs.50,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties in the like
                  amount.

           (iii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any
                  inducement, threat or promise to any prosecution witness and
                  shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

           (iv)   The applicants shall not enter the village/locality in which the
                  material prosecution witnesses reside, except for attending the
                  trial or with prior permission of the Trial Court, for a period of
                  six months from their release.

           (v)    The applicants shall furnish their current residential address and
                  mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court
                  and shall intimate any change thereof.

           (vi)   The applicants shall attend the Trial Court regularly and shall
                  not seek unnecessary adjournments.

           (vii) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of
                  the Trial Court and, if possessing passports, shall deposit the
                  same before the Trial Court.

           (viii) Any attempt to contact or influence the material prosecution
                  witnesses shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation
                  of bail.




                                                      (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan


                                                                            10 of 10