RAHUL APPA KALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:3523



                                                               918 BA No.2103.2025
                                              -1-

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2103 OF 2025

                                     RAHUL APPA KALE
                                         VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                             ***
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sujit Patil
              APP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
                                             ***

                              CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                 Date : 17th January, 2026

              ORDER :-


              1.         The applicant has approached this Court seeking

              regular bail in connection with FIR dated 06.01.2025 bearing Crime

              No. 5 of 2025 registered with Yermala Police Station, Dist.

              Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2),

              191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 109 and 190 of

              the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNS” for short).



              2.         The case of the prosecution is that on 05.01.2025, at

              approximately 5:30 p.m., the informant, Vandana Bhagyawant

              Kale, was present at her residence with other family members. At

              that time, her sister-in-law Rekha, telephoned the informant's

              nephew Sunil, informing him that co-accused Appa Kale switched
                                                   918 BA No.2103.2025
                                 -2-

off the motor installed on the common well. Appa Kale allegedly

stated that he would no longer permit them to fetch water from the

well and ensure Rekha to make alternative water arrangements.

During the phone call, Rekha further reported to Sunil that she had

been assaulted by co-accused Appa Kale, Parmeshwar Kale, the

present applicant Rahul Kale, and co-accused Rukshalabai Kale and

Vijayantabai Kale.



3.          It is further case of the prosecution is that immediately

following the phone call, the informant accompanied by Sunil Kale

and Nagesh Kale, departed for the scene of the incident on a

motorcycle. Thereafter, the informant telephoned her sister-in-law

Balubai to brief her on the situation and requested her presence at

the agricultural field. At approximately 19:00 hours on 05.01.2025,

the informant Nagesh and Sunil reached the field. Simultaneously,

the informant’s husband Bhagyawant along with Uttreshwar,

Balubai and the Sarpanch of the village Bavi also arrived at the

location.



4.          It is further alleged that upon the arrival of the family,

Kalawati (the informant's mother-in-law), Rekha, and Vishal also

gathered at the agricultural field. Sunil Kale questioned co-accused
                                                918 BA No.2103.2025
                               -3-

Appa Kale and the present applicant Rahul Kale, regarding the

assault on his mother. In response, Appa Kale, Rahul Kale,

Parmeshwar Kale and Rukshalabai reiterated that they would not

allow to fetch water from the well and ordered them to find an

alternative source.



5.         It is further alleged that a physical confrontation

subsequently ensued between both parties. The present applicant

was armed with a sickle, Parmeshwar Kale held a small knife,

Vijayantabai Kale carried a piece of wood and Rukshalabai was

armed with a wooden log. These individuals launched a coordinated

assault on the informant Sunil Kale, Balubai, Rajendra, Kalawati,

Bhagyawant and Uttreshwar. Additionally, co-accused Appa Kale

subjected them to physical battery using kicks and punches while

hurling verbal abuses. During the assault, Sunil Parmeshwar Kale

sustained grievous injuries.



6.         It is further alleged that following the assault, the

informant and her associates shifted the injured Sunil Kale to the

Rural Hospital in Washi. Due to the severity of condition, was

referred to Osmanabad, however, they ultimately admitted injured

to Sahyadri Hospital, transporting him there in a Bolero jeep.
                                                        918 BA No.2103.2025
                                      -4-

Despite receiving medical treatment, Sunil Kale succumbed to the

injuries at approximately 21:47 hours on 05.01.2025. Based on

this report, the FIR came to be registered.



7.           The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged

crime. It is contended that the investigation is complete and the

charge-sheet    has   been   filed,     yet   there   remains   insufficient

incriminating material to satisfy the penal provisions cited in the

FIR. The counsel highlights that a cross-complaint, Crime No.

04/2025, was registered at the Yermala Police Station against the

informant and her family members for the murder of the

applicant’s father, Appa Bhau Kale, and his brother, Parmeshwar

Appa Kale.



8.           It is further submitted by the learned counsel for

applicant that some of the accused individuals in that counter-case

have already been released on bail by the Sesions Court. The

applicant has been in custody since 07.01.2025, and it is argued

that his further detention is unjustified. The applicant expresses a

willingness to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the

Court. Consequently, the counsel prays for the applicant to be
                                                       918 BA No.2103.2025
                                   -5-

released on bail.



9.          The learned APP has opposed the application and

submitted that the offence is of a grave and serious nature. It is

submitted that the applicant played an active role in the crime,

acting in concert with the co-accused to launch a fatal assault on

Sunil Kale. There is sufficient incriminating material to establish a

prima   facie   case    under    the     registered    penal   provisions.

Furthermore,    the    learned   APP     expressed    apprehension   that,

considering the gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s release

would lead to the likelihood intimidation of material witnesses or

interference with the course of justice. As such, prayed for the

rejection of the application.



10.         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 :
                                                  918 BA No.2103.2025
                                 -6-

        “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.

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


11.        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.



12.        Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of UP
                                                  918 BA No.2103.2025
                                   -7-

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 collected overwhelming evidence against the

present applicant.



13.        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.



14.        Similarly, the Hon’ble 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.



15.        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
                                                      918 BA No.2103.2025
                                   -8-

possibility of justice being thwarted.



16.          In the present case, based on the FIR and the

corroborating statements of witnesses, it is evident that the

applicant was armed with a sickle at the time of the incident.

Acting in concert with the co-accused, the applicant participated in

a violent assault on the informant and several prosecution

witnesses,   including   Sunil   Kale,   Balibai,   Rajendra,   Kalawati,

Bhagyawant, and Uttreshwar. The gravity of the offence is

underscored by the fact that Sunil Kale sustained grievous injuries

during this coordinated attack, which directly resulted in death.



17.          Moreover, the PM Report corroborates the violent

nature of the assault, identifying the probable cause of death as

shock and hemorrhage resulting from multiple stab wounds to vital

organs.



18.          The co-accused Rukshalabai and Vaijyantabai were

granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. However, the principle

of parity does not extend to the present applicant. The applicant’s

role is distinct and far more severe. The record indicates that the

applicant was armed with a sickle and actively participated in a
                                                          918 BA No.2103.2025
                                     -9-

coordinated assault on the deceased. Considering these specific

and grave allegations, the applicant cannot claim parity with the

co-accused.



19.           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.



20.           Considering the material currently available, a clear

prima facie case is made out showing the involvement of the

accused.      Equally,   the   Hon’ble     Apex   Court   has   consistently

reiterated that while considering bail application/s in serious

offenses, such as pre-meditated murder, the Court must treat vital

considerations like the nature of the charge and the nature of the

evidence as paramount.



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