KUMAR ALIAS KHANDU MARUTI WAGHMODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                              41-BA-184-2026 (CR).doc


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2026

                                               Kumar @ Khandu Maruti Waghmode
                                                             VERSUS
                                                The State of Maharashtra And Anr.

                                                         ...
                        Mr.Paras Yadav a/w Mr. Anirudha Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant.
                        Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent - State.
                                                         ...
                                                      CORAM :     SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                                      DATE    :   18th MARCH, 2026.
                        P. C. :

                        1.             The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R.

                        No. 268 of 2024 dated 20.04.2024 registered with Vadgaon Police

                        Station, District Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Section

                        302 of the Indian Penal Code.

                        2.             The prosecution case is that on 20 th April 2024, at about

                        12:15 p.m., the applicant/accused allegedly committed the murder

                        of the deceased. The applicant and deceased were residents of the

                        same village and were known to each other. The deceased operated

                        a chicken shop located directly opposite the residence of the

                        applicant. It is alleged that an illicit relationship had developed
           Digitally

SAJAKALI
           signed by
           SAJAKALI
           LIYAKAT
                        between the deceased and the applicant's wife due to their
LIYAKAT    JAMADAR
JAMADAR    Date:
           2026.03.25
           19:30:41
           +0530




                        Sajakali Jamadar                     1 of 6
                                                    41-BA-184-2026 (CR).doc


proximity. Despite several warnings from the applicant, his family,

and local villagers to desist from this relationship, no change in their

conduct was observed.

3.             On 20.04.2024 at about 11:00 a.m., the deceased left to

meet Sandip Waghmode on a motorcycle to inspect some buckling

near Ambedkar Nagar. As the deceased lowered down the speed of

motorcycle due to speed breaker, the applicant, who was grazing

goats, intercepted the deceased armed with a sharp-edged weapon

(an Axe), launched a violent assault, striking the deceased on the

neck and shoulder. These injuries proved fatal, resulting in the

immediate death. Hence, the report.

4.             The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the

incident occurred at the spur of the sudden provocation. It is

contended that there was no premeditation on the part of the

applicant while inflicting the blow upon the deceased. It is further

submitted that the applicant is required to attend to his ailing

mother. Furthermore, as the investigation is complete and the

charge-sheet has been duly filed, and since the trial is not

progressing, the learned Counsel contends that these circumstances

entail the applicant to be admitted to bail.



Sajakali Jamadar                   2 of 6
                                                               41-BA-184-2026 (CR).doc


5.             Per contra, the learned APP opposed the application,

submitting that the act of the applicant was premeditated. It is

contended that the applicant delivered a blow to the deceased using

the sharp edge of an axe, which resulted in the victim's death. The

learned APP further emphasized that the potential punishment for

such an offence is punishable for imprisonment for life or death.

6.             Having heard the submissions from both the sides and

upon perusal of the record including charge-sheet, prima facie the

fact remains that the applicant has inflicted the blow from the sharp

end of the acts which is resulted into death of the victim.                        The

subsequent conduct of the applicant also needs to be taken into

account, since the applicant fled from the spot immediately after

inflicting the blow on the deceased.

7.       The Honourable Apex Court, in the 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


Sajakali Jamadar                         3 of 6
                                                              41-BA-184-2026 (CR).doc


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


8.       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.

9.       The Honourable Apex Court in case of Ram Govind Upadhyay

vs. Sudarshan Singh [(2002)3 SCC 598] , has held that a judicial

discretion in granting bail must not be exercised whimsically,

especially in heinous offences.

10.      Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the 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.



Sajakali Jamadar                        4 of 6
                                                               41-BA-184-2026 (CR).doc


11.                The Honourable Apex Court, in the 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.

12.      In view of the aforesaid aspects, further perusal of the record

indicates that the applicant had suspected that the deceased had

illicit relationship with his wife. The said fact is corroborated by the

statement of informant, who has narrated a prior incident of having

warned the deceased to maintain distance from applicant’s wife. As

such, prima facie there is motive on the part of the applicant. The

weapon used in commission of the offence is also recovered at the

instance of the applicant.

13.            Thus,    considering   the      totality   of     the    facts    and

circumstances stated herein-above, and the complicity of the

applicant as noted by the eyewitnesses to the incident, this Court is

of the opinion that the act of inflicting a blow on a vital part with a

lethal weapon disentitles the applicant to the grant of bail.

14.            Resultantly, the application stands rejected.


Sajakali Jamadar                      5 of 6
                                                     41-BA-184-2026 (CR).doc


15.            Needless to state, the observations made herein are

confined to the adjudication of the present application. The trial

court shall proceed with the trial on its own merits, uninfluenced by

any observation made in this order, and in accordance with the law.



                                          [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]




Sajakali Jamadar                 6 of 6