Bombay High Court
SURAJ ALIAS MAULI ANANDRAO BAPTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, granting regular bail to the applicant on condition of a personal bond and sureties.
Summary
The applicant, Suraj alias Mauli Anandrao Bapte, was charged with murder and criminal conspiracy under Sections 302, 120(b) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of Manohar Vilas Punde. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co‑accused, assaulted the deceased on 27 August 2023, leading to his death, relying primarily on circumstantial evidence and the fact that the deceased was last seen with the applicant. The defence argued lack of direct eyewitness testimony, asserted the applicant’s innocence, and highlighted that two co‑accused had already been released on bail, invoking parity. The Court examined the material, noting the case was built on circumstantial evidence without a seamless chain, and considered the risk of trial delay and the applicant’s potential to tamper with evidence could be mitigated by strict bail conditions. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, granting regular bail with a personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions. The order emphasized that the observations were limited to the bail application and should not influence the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where the prosecution's case is based solely on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.
- Whether parity with co‑accused already on bail warrants granting bail to the applicant.
- Whether the trial can be concluded within a reasonable period to justify continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120(b), 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 120(b) IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- circumstantial evidence
- undertrial detention
- parity
- regular bail
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4630
33 BA No.1917.2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1917 OF 2025
SURAJ ALIAS MAULI ANANDRAO BAPTE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. P. Dawalkar
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 2nd February, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 28.08.2023 bearing Crime
No. 450 of 2023 registered with Georai Police Station, Dist. Beed for
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(b) read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.08.2023
approximately at 08:15 a.m., the body of a male person was
discovered along Manyarwadi road in Georai Taluka. Following a
spot panchnama conducted by the police, the deceased was
identified as Manohar Vilas Punde, a resident of Georai, District
Beed.
3. It is alleged that during the inquiry with the co-accused
33 BA No.1917.2025
-2-
and brother of the deceased Darshan (alias Gotu) Vilasrao Punde, it
was revealed that Manohar suffered from liquor addiction and
frequently availed hand loans on interest. The co-accused stated
that both he and his mother were subjected to daily physical and
verbal abuse by Manohar, while he was under the influence of
alcohol.
4. It is further alleged by the prosecution that driven by
the above circumstances, Darshan contacted the present applicant
and others to intervene and reprimand Manohar. Consequently, on
27.08.2023 at about 11:30 p.m., the applicant and other co-
accused allegedly took Manohar on a motorcycle and assaulted
him, inflicting injuries that led to his death.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence, emphasizing
the absence of any independent eyewitness to establish his
complicity. It is further contended that the prosecution case is
based entirely on a circumstantial chain of events and the same is
completed. On 27.08.2023, the deceased was allegedly seen with
the applicant and his body was found on 28.08.2023.
6. The learned counsel for applicant further submits that
there was no intention to commit murder. The learned counsel also
submits that a co-accused in this crime has already been enlarged
33 BA No.1917.2025
-3-
on bail by this Court; therefore, on the grounds of parity, it is
prayed that the application be allowed.
7. The learned APP opposed the application, submitting
that the applicant beat the deceased, who succumbed to the
injuries. It is contended that the offence is serious in nature and
that there is sufficient material on record to establish the
applicant’s complicity. Furthermore, the APP argued that if the
applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility of the
prosecution evidence being tampered with or the offense being
repeated. Accordingly, it was prayed that the application be
rejected.
8. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and
perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet, it
prima facie appears that the case of the prosecution is primarily
based on circumstantial evidence. While the deceased was
allegedly last seen with the applicant on 27.08.2023, the body was
not discovered until 28.08.2023. It is settled position that in cases
where there is no direct ocular evidence (eyewitnesses), the benefit
of doubt at the bail stage may be extended to the accused, in the
event, the chain of circumstances is not prima facie seamless or
conclusive.
9. Furthermore, the co-accused, Darshan alias Gotu
33 BA No.1917.2025
-4-
Vilasrao Punde and Aniket Ajay Zada, have already been enlarged
on bail by this Court. A perusal of the prosecution case reveals that
the allegations against the present applicant are identical to those
levelled against the co-accused.
10. The investigation is complete for all intent and purpose
and the charge-sheet is filed. Having regard to the number of
accused and the witnesses which the prosecution proposes to
examine, it is very unlikely that the trial can be commenced and
concluded within a reasonable period.
11. As such, further detention of the applicant as an under
trial prisoner, in the circumstances of the case, does not seem to be
either warranted or justifiable. I am, therefore, persuaded to
exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. The apprehension
expressed by the learned APP about tampering with the
prosecution evidence, can be adequately taken care of by imposing
stringent conditions.
12. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant – Suraj @ Mauli Anandrao Bapte, be
released on regular bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.
50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two local
33 BA No.1917.2025
-5-
solvent sureties in the like amount, in Crime No. 450
of 2023 registered with Georai Police Station, Dist.
Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
120(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
on the following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall attend each and every date of the
Trial Court unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(c) The applicant shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card to
the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses and
phone numbers of applicant and two of the near
relatives.
(d) Breach of any of the conditions by the applicant would
entail the cancellation of the bail.
(iii) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of this application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by the same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…