Bombay High Court
MAHESH MADHUKAR PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that there is no prima facie case of common intention against the applicant and consequently granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mahesh Madhukar Pawar in connection with FIR No.697 of 2025, which alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 including murder and related provisions. The incident involved the applicant sitting in the rear seat of a car driven by his brother Santosh Pawar, who allegedly ran over Vithal Gaikar after a quarrel, resulting in Gaikar’s death. The applicant contended that he neither participated in the assault nor shared a common intention to commit the murder, and the prosecution argued a prima facie case of common intention. After examining the material, the Court found no evidence that the applicant contributed to or instigated the fatal act and held that the prima facie case against him was weak. Considering his lack of flight risk, prior bail record, and the absence of any indication of tampering with evidence, the Court granted bail with standard conditions. The bail order also stipulated regular police attendance, territorial restrictions, and a surety bond of Rs.50,000.
Issues considered
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicant for common intention to commit murder under sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedent justifies refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 3(5), 49, 54, 55
- Indian Penal Code — s. 324, 452
Subjects
- bail
- common intention
- murder
- vehicular homicide
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- prima facie case
- flight risk
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN H.C.SHIV 907.BA1993.26.DOC
SHIV
Digitally signed by
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.09.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
15:25:04 +0300
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1993 OF 2026
Mahesh Madhukar Pawar …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Ms. Keral Mehta for the Applicant.
Ms. S. K. Gajare, APP the Respondent-State.
Mr. Yadav, PSI, Shreenagar police station, Thane present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Present Application seeks release of the Applicant on bail in
connection with Cr. No.697 of 2025, registered with Shreenagar
police station, Thane for the offence punishable under Sections
103(1), 109(1), 3(5), 115(2), 49, 54, and 55 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), on the report dated 3 rd September 2025,
lodged by informant-Shankar Varthe.
3. The case of the prosecution is that prior to the incident, the
informant and his family members were cultivating vegetables on
land belonging to the Forest Department. Santosh Pawar (A3) had
demanded to handover that land to him and, on that count, had
assaulted the informant’s wife and his maternal cousin, Babu.
Consequently, an offence was registered against A3 at Shreenagar
Police Station. Applicant, A3 and Amit Pawar are brothers.
On 2nd September 2025, at about 8.30 p.m., the informant
with his maternal cousin Babu, and his friends Vasant Tokare and
Page 1 of 4
H.C.SHIV 907.BA1993.26.DOC
Vithal Gaikar were present at the spot. At that time, the informant
and Vithal Gaikar proceeded to get cigarettes, when they heard a
commotion involving A3 and Vasant Tokare. As alleged, A3 was
assaulting Vasant Tokare. The informant and Vithal Gaikar
intervened. The applicant was present there standing behind a four-
wheeler, while his the younger brother, Amit Pawar was standing
near a two-wheeler. It is alleged that, A3 and Mahesh Patil (A4)
gave fist blows on the face of Babu, whereupon Babu proceeded to
the police station. Subsequently, A3 sat in his car and the applicant
occupied the rear seat of car. At that juncture, the informant
advised A3 to settle their differences, as they were residing in the
same vicinity. However, A3, allegedly in a fit of rage, drove the car
at high speed, dashed it against Vithal Gaikar, and ran the vehicle
over him repeatedly. When the informant attempted to intervene,
A3 allegedly drove the car towards him as well, with an intention to
kill him. As a result, Vithal Gaikar succumbed to the injuries. It is
alleged that, co-accused A4 had instigated A3 to eliminate the
persons associated with the informant’s side. Therefore, aforesaid
crime came to be registered. Upon completion of the investigation,
charge-sheet was filed. Trial court rejected to release the applicant
on bail. Hence, this Application.
5. Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted
that the alleged incident occurred within a very short span of time.
Admittedly, the applicant did not take part in the assault. There was
no conversation between the applicant and A3 in relation to the
incident. Therefore, there is no material to attract the charge of the
offence punishable u/S. 103 and 3 (5) of BNS. Therefore, applicant
is entitled for bail.
6. In reply, Ms.Gajare, learned APP submitted that, considering
the facts of the case, as noted above, there is a prima facie case
Page 2 of 4
H.C.SHIV 907.BA1993.26.DOC
against the applicant of having shared common intention to commit
the murder. Therefore, bail be refused.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record. From the material on record, it appears that after the initial
quarrel, when A3 entered the car, the applicant occupied on the rear
seat. Immediately thereafter, A3, in a fit of rage, drove the vehicle
and dashed it against Vithal Gaikar and thereafter ran the vehicle
over his body. However, there is no material to indicate that the
applicant either contributed to the said act or instigated A3 in any
manner. In the aforesaid circumstances, at this stage, it is difficult
to hold that there is a prima facie case against the applicant of
having shared the common intention with A3 to commit the
murder. The applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with the
evidence. The applicant has one criminal antecedent under Sections
452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, of the year 2009. Therein, he
is on bail and he has not misused the liberty so granted.
8. In view thereof, the Applicant is entitled for bail. Hence,
following Order :-
(i) The Applicant – Mahesh Madhukar Pawar be released
on bail in aforesaid FIR registered with Shreenagar police
station, Thane on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall mark his attendance at Shreenagar
police station, Thane on 1 st day of each calender month
between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.
(iii) Except for attendance at Shreenagar police station,
Thane, the applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Thane
District for one year from the date of his release from jail.
Page 3 of 4
H.C.SHIV 907.BA1993.26.DOC
(iv) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(v) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(vi) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish
his contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vii) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for
which he has been arraigned in this case.
(viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial
and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
9. At this stage, as requested by the learned Counsel
Mr.Mundargi, the applicant is granted four weeks time to furnish
surety. Till then, the applicant be released on bail on his executing a
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and depositing a sum of
Rs.50,000/- in lieu of furnishing the surety bond. On furnishing
such surety/ies, the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the
applicant shall be returned.
10. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…