RAVINDRA RAGHUNATH CHAVAN AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:45934
                                                  1                      946.doc



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                      946 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1863 OF 2026
                                      WITH
                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3861 OF 2026
                                 IN BA/1863/2026
                                           ...

                  RAVINDRA RAGHUNATH CHAVAN AND ANOTHER
                                   VERSUS
                         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                           …

                    Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. Jadhav Satej S
                       APP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.J. Patil
       Advocate for Applicant in Cri.Appl.3861/2026 : Mr. Shekade Shashikant E.
                                           …
                                         CORAM        : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                           DATE       : 01.10.2026
             PER COURT :
             .       Heard learned Advocate for the Applicants, learned APP for the
             State and also learned Advocate for informant.

             2.      The present application seeks regular bail in connection with the
             Crime No.492 of 2026 dated 15.08.2026 registered with Georai Police
             Station, District Beed for offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5),
             351(2),352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicants were
             arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime on 15.08.2026 and
             since then they are in custody. The prosecution story in brief originates
             from the report came to be lodged by the wife of the deceased, who
             was employed as a lineman with the MSEDCL department. On
             14.08.2026, the deceased left the house on his motorcycle at about
             7:00 am. He did not answer the telephone call made by the informant
                                   2                        946.doc



in afternoon. In the evening, the informant learnt that his motorcycle
has been standing near Madhav ginning at Jategaon road since
morning. Subsequently, the deceased was found hanging on a neem
tree behind the ginning premises. According to the informant, the
police came to the spot, took the dead body of the deceased on the
ground and while examining his clothes, they recovered a handwritten
note from his pocket. The notes described in the FIR was also shown to
the informant wherein it is attributed that the decision to commit
suicide was due to certain persons. While stating so, the present
applicants are named in the said suicide note.

3.    The FIR further refers to the long standing dispute concerning
approximately two gunthas land situated behind the informant’s house.
According to the informant, the deceased had purchased the land from
the father of applicant No.1 about 20 years earlier, but there was no
registered document executed between the parties. The differences
arose between the family of the present applicants and the deceased
when the construction of the kitchen was undertaken in March 2026.
The informant alleges that about a month before the incident, the
accused dismantled the iron angles erected on the disputed land and
took quarrel. From the said quarrel, it is alleged that accused allegedly
struck the deceased on his chest with a brick resulting in his
hospitalization.

4.    The informant further alleges that after the deceased returned
home, the accused, including the present applicants once again abused
him and demanded that he should vacate the landed property or pay a
sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs. They allegedly threatened to implicate the
                                   3                        946.doc



deceased in a false criminal case and calls him to use his employment.
The first information report does thereafter records that a meeting was
held before the village Sarpanch and that the dispute was resolved
amicably between the parties by making a payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs.
However, it also records the subsequent incident which took place on
12.08.2026, after the dispute was resolved amicably. It is alleged by the
informant that the deceased had informed her that on the said date
applicant No.2-Raju Rathod alongwith Balu Jadhav and one Vijay
Rathod allegedly abused the deceased at a weekly market and
threatened to cause him his employment. The informant states that the
deceased committed suicide due to continuous mental and physical
harassment caused to the deceased. She alleges that the deceased
committed suicide on account of harassment caused at the hands of the
present applicants and other accused persons.

5.    Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants argues that there
was a long standing dispute over ownership and possession of the land.
He further submits that the informant himself instigated that the
dispute between the parties be settled by making payment of Rs.2.00
lakhs. According to the learned Advocate the allegations concerning
instigation or intentionally aiding the deceased in committing suicide is
not disclosed in the entire FIR. He further argues that applicant No.1 is
not named as a participant in the incident dated 12.08.2026. As
regards the said incident, learned Advocate for the applicants points
out that the informant’s statement is based upon the information that
was provided to her by the deceased. The said information cannot be
said to be a direct evidence, but will fall in the category of a hearsay
                                   4                         946.doc



evidence which ultimately will have to be proved and tested before the
trial Court. He further argues that the applicants have been in custody
since 15.08.2026, and the investigation is substantially over and
therefore, further detention on the basis of the same is unnecessary.

6.    At the outset, when this Court showed disinclination to allow the
application of applicant No.2/Raju Rathod, the learned Advocate, on
instructions, seeks simpliciter withdrawal of the application to the
extent of applicant No. 2, with liberty to file a fresh application, after
the charge-sheet is filed.

7.    The learned APP vehemently opposes grant of bail even to the
applicant No.1/Ravindra Raghunath Chavan. He submits that the
allegations against the present applicant is specific that he was present
at the incident that has been narrated by the informant in the first
information report. He is one of the persons named as responsible for
driving the deceased for commissioning of the suicide. He submits that
the investigation is still in progress. The other co-accused persons have
approached the Sessions Court by way of Anticipatory Bail Application
and their investigation is also pending. He thus, submits that taking
into consideration the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the
application of applicant No.1 should also be rejected.

8.    The allegations requiring consideration at this stage include the
earlier threats concerning the deceased and naming the deceased in a
false criminal case. The other aspects that requires consideration is
naming of the applicants in the alleged suicide note. The incident
which has been narrated of 12.08.2026, had occurred two days prior to
                                   5                         946.doc



the death of the deceased also requires the due consideration. These
circumstances however, have to be examined separately in relation to
the role attributed to the present applicant.

9.    In so far as the applicant No.1 is concerned, the distinction in the
allegations is clearly visible from the material placed on record. There
cannot be a dispute that the name of the present applicant is not
mentioned in the alleged note and also in the allegations levelled by
the informant in the first information report pertaining to the threats
given to the deceased. The important aspect to note is that in the
immediate incident prior to the commissioning of the suicide dated
12.08.2026, the name of present applicant No.1/Ravindra Chavhan is
not mentioned. The earlier dispute though disregarded but the first
information report itself records an intervening settlement between the
parties in front of the Sarpanch of the village for an amount of Rs.2.00
lakhs. On the material placed before this Court, no subsequent specific
act by the present applicant No.1 has been identified between the
period of settlement and the incident dated 12.08.2026.

10.   It is a settled principle that the abetment requires consideration
of whether the accused instigated, participated in a conspiracy
accompanied by the requisite act or commission or intentionally aided
the act in question. At the stage of bail, the Court can consider the
conduct attributed to the particular applicant, without undertaking of
final assessment of evidence. The alleged suicide note is relevant and
cannot be ignored at this stage. Nevertheless, the name of the present
applicant No.1 in that note must be considered together with the
specific allegation against him, the acknowledged statement and his
                                   6                         946.doc



absence during the alleged incident dated 12.08.2026, which is
immediately preceding the death.

11.    The Court does not consider it appropriate at this stage to reject
the allegations pertaining to the incident dated 12.08.2026 merely
because the informant learnt about the said from the deceased. Its
evidentiary value will have to be considered at the appropriate stage.
For the present purpose, the significant circumstance is that the
incident is attributed to person other than the present applicant No.1.
Likewise, the existence of land dispute does not by itself imposes the
criminal liability. The question is whether the material presently
available justifies the continued detention of applicant No.1 for the
alleged offence.

12.    Having regard to the nature of the allegations specifically
attributable to the present applicant No.1, the intervening settlement
recorded in the FIR and the absence of the name of the present
applicant No.1 from the incident on 12.08.2026 coupled with the fact
that the present applicant has been in custody since 15.08.2026, I am
of the opinion that the applicant No.1/Ravindra Raghunath Chavhan
deserves to be released on bail. Hence, the following order is passed:

                                 ORDER
(i)    The Bail Application is allowed to the extent of Applicant No.1.

(ii)   The applicant No.1 shall be released on bail in Crime No.492 of
2026 dated 15.08.2026 registered with Georai Police Station, District
Beed for offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5), 351(2),352 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing a personal bond of
                                     7                           946.doc



Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two solvent
surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions :

a)    The applicant No.1 shall attend the trial Court on every date
fixed, unless his attendance is specifically exempted and shall not take
any adjournment before the trial Court.

b)    The applicant No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, contact,
threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness
and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

c)    The applicant No.1 shall furnish his current residential address
and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and the trial Court
within seven days of release, intimate any change forthwith, and attend
the Investigating Officer till the filing of the charge-sheet.

d)    The applicant No.1 shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court and, if he possesses passports, shall deposit the same
with the trial Court within seven days of their release.

e)    The applicant No.1 shall not involve himself in any offence of a
similar nature while on bail.

f)    Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.

g)    All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the
decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall decide the case
independently on the evidence led before it. The Bail Application is
disposed of in the above terms.
                                  8                     946.doc




h) Pending Application stands disposed of.




                                      ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. )

V.S.Joshi