ANIKET VISHNU MUNDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:954



                                                                920 BA No.1690.2025
                                              -1-

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1690 OF 2025

                                  ANIKET VISHNU MUNDE
                                         VERSUS
                         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                              ***
              Advocate for Applicant : Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh
              a/w Ms. Rakshanda Jaiswal i/b Mr. Abhijeet Avhad
              APP for Respondents-State : Mr. B. B. Bhise
              Applicant in Cri.Appln. : Mr. K. N. Shermale (Assist to PP)
                                              ***
                                         WITH
                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4726 OF 2025
                                    IN BA/1690/2025
                                              ***

                               CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                  Date : 8th January, 2026

              ORDER :-

              1.          The applicant has approached this Court seeking

              regular bail in connection with FIR dated 13.12.2024 bearing Crime

              No. 489 of 2024 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur

              for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the

              Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.



              2.          The prosecution's case is that the informant's son, Balu

              (deceased), was employed as a Security Guard at the Icon

              Superficiality Hospital, Latur, which belongs to accused No.1, Dr.
                                                  920 BA No.1690.2025
                                 -2-

Pramod. It is alleged that accused Dr. Pramod had kidnapped and

assaulted the contractor responsible for the hospital's elevator

installation. Subsequently, Dr. Pramod then induced deceased to

take his place in the crime, assuring deceased that if he stood in as

the accused, he would remain on the payroll and receive his salary

without performing any work.



3.         The prosecution further alleges that on 11.12.2024, the

informant was informed by her husband, Bharat, that her son Balu,

had been admitted to Dr. Pramod’s hospital in critical condition.

Upon arrival, Bharat found that Balu had passed away, with visible

injury marks across his body. Although accused No. 1, Dr. Pramod,

asserted that the victim had sought treatment independently after

a road accident, he subsequently refused the family’s demands for

the hospital's CCTV footage. These circumstances, particularly the

refusal to share surveillance data, caused the informant and her

family to suspect the accused’s involvement in the death of Balu.



4.         It is further alleged that Gajanan, a security guard

stationed at Dr. Pramod’s hospital, provided the informant with an

eyewitness account of the incident. It is alleged that the deceased,

Balu, arrived at the premises on his scooter while under the

influence of alcohol. He reportedly sought out Dr. Pramod at his
                                                   920 BA No.1690.2025
                                  -3-

6th floor residence to demand payment. While Balu was seen

descending from the 6th floor approximately one hour later, he

soon returned to the same floor. Notably, it is alleged that Gajanan

accompanied the victim to the 6th floor upon the specific

instructions of accused No. 1, Dr. Pramod.



5.           It is further alleged that during the dispute, Dr. Pramod

slapped Balu and forcibly moved the victim, Balu, to the server

room. Personnel associated with the accused Dr. Pramod, as well as

the applicant Aniket (Dr. Pramod's nephew), joined them. A

collective assault commenced within the room while the victim was

alarming for help. Gajanan was instructed by Dr. Pramod to go

downstairs. Subsequently, Dr. Pramod summoned Gajanan to

retrieve a stretcher. As per these directives, Gajanan and others

shifted the unconscious Balu into the hospital’s ICU, where both Dr.

Pramod and the applicant Aniket reportedly administered medical

treatment.



6.           The prosecution further alleges that the applicant

descended from the upper floor and used a stick to even damage

the victim’s scooter, specifically destroying the indicator and front

mudguard, and defacing the number plate. It is the case of the

prosecution that accused No. 1, Dr. Pramod, and applicant Aniket,
                                                    920 BA No.1690.2025
                                  -4-

aided by other staff members, subjected the victim to a fatal

assault. Consequent to the FIR lodged by the informant and the

conclusion of the investigation, the applicant, along with the other

co-accused, was taken into custody.



7.          In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Senior counsel

for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely

implicated in the offence, since he is related to accused Dr.Promod.

It is further submitted that the applicant voluntarily surrendered to

the police on 25.12.2024 and has since been in judicial custody.

The counsel further submits that there is no active role played by

the present applicant and there is no direct evidence to show the

the applicant's complicity in the crime. Given that the investigation

is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, continued

incarceration is unjustified. The counsel asserts that the applicant is

an innocent person and hence, prayed to release the applicant on

bail.



8.          The learned APP submits that the prosecution has cited

material witnesses. It is further submitted that the Investigating

Officer has seized various articles from the spot and there is

substantial evidence against the present applicant indicating the

complicity of the applicant. The offence is serious in nature. If the
                                                   920 BA No.1690.2025
                                 -5-

applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering

with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed to reject the

application.



9.             Having heard the learned counsel for applicant and

learned APP for State, the applicant is facing the charge of murder

which is punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar and

Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors. [(2004)7 SCC 528], while

laying down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail in serious

offences like murder, has observed as under :



        “11.     The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
        very well settled. The court granting bail should
        exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as
        a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail
        a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
        documentation of the merit of the case need not be
        undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
        reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being
        granted particularly where the accused is charged of
        having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid
        of such reasons would suffer from non-application of
        mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to
        consider among other circumstances, the following
        factors also before granting bail; they are:

             (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
        punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
        supporting evidence.

            (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
        witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
                                                  920 BA No.1690.2025
                                   -6-

            (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support
        of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
        Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas.)


10.        The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Vs.

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 670) has laid down the

principle that bail can be refused when the material produced by

prosecution establishes a clear prima facie case. The Court should

not conduct a mini-trial; it should only examine whether the

available evidence links the accused to the alleged offense.


11.        Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of UP

through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005)8 SCC 21], has

held that the Court must evaluate the prima facie evidence

showing the applicant's involvement. If such evidence is credible

and supports the accusations, bail may be refused. As stated

earlier, the prosecution has, prima facie, collected overwhelming

evidence against the present applicant.


12.        Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pralhad

Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi [(2001)4 SCC 280], held that on

satisfaction of prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the

accused, the bail can be denied.


13.        Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ram

Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh [(2002)3 SCC 598],
                                                  920 BA No.1690.2025
                                 -7-

has held that a judicial discretion in granting bail must not be

exercised whimsically, especially in heinous offences.


14.         The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prasanta Kumar

Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010)14 SCC 496], has held that

the mechanical grant of bail reflects non-application of mind, and

outlined eight crucial factors to be considered, including reasonable

ground for belief in guilt, nature of evidence and possibility of

justice being thwarted.


15.         Upon a perusal of the record, prima facie, it is evident

that the applicant, acting in concert with co-accused Dr. Pramod,

was actively involved in the alleged offence, a fact substantiated by

the available witness statements specifically Gajanan.           The

applicant was actively accompanied with accused Dr. Pramod from

the time when the deceased was taken to the 6 th floor and even

after assault, the applicant shifted the deceased to ICU and

threatened the staff, not to disclose the incident under any

eventuality. Furthermore, there is prima facie evidence to indicate

that the applicant intentionally vandalized the scooter used by the

deceased.


16.         By damaging the vehicle, the applicant purportedly

attempted to fabricate a narrative that the deceased arrived at the

hospital following a vehicular accident, thereby seeking to disguise
                                                          920 BA No.1690.2025
                                         -8-

a     homicidal    act   as   a   road    mishap.   The   applicant's    direct

participation in the assault, coupled with his subsequent actions to

destroy    evidence      including   CCTV      footage,   and   mislead    the

investigation, clearly indicates a common intention to commit the

crime.


17.          The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Bihar Vs.

Amit Kumar [(2017)13 SCC 751], has held that delay especially

in cases involving serious offences, cannot by itself be a ground for

bail. In the present case, the trial is actively progressing, and the

prosecution has demonstrated its commitment to concluding

proceedings expeditiously. Given the seriousness of the offences

charged,     the    extensive     material     evidence   presented     weighs

overwhelmingly against the applicant


18.          Considering the material on record, a clear prima facie

case has been established regarding the applicant's involvement. It

is evident that the offense was a premeditated act, followed by an

active attempt to manipulate the narrative by disguising the

incident as an accident. Given this conduct, there is a significant

likelihood that the applicant will attempt to tamper with witnesses

if released on bail.


19.          The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently reiterated,

when dealing with serious offenses such as premeditated murder,
                                                        920 BA No.1690.2025
                                    -9-

the court must prioritize the nature of the charges and the weight

of the evidence.


20.           To secure bail, the applicant must establish that the

evidence      collected   and   intended     to   be   presented   by   the

prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case of the applicant's

involvement in or commission of the alleged offence. Since this

necessary aspect has not been satisfied by the applicant, as such,

request of the applicant to be enlarged on bail does not warrant

consideration.


21.           In view of the aforesaid observations and having regard

to the gravity of the offence, I do not find merit in the present

application and accordingly, the bail application is rejected.




                                          (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

Omkar Joshi