RAJKUMAR UDDHAV GATCHERALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:8473
                                                          Bail Appln.No.2450/2025
                                          :: 1 ::




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                         BAIL APPLICATION NO.2450 OF 2025


            Rajkumar s/o Uddhav Gatcherale          … APPLICANT

                    VERSUS

            The State of Maharashtra                … RESPONDENT

                                              .......
            Mr. P.P. Giri, Advocate for applicant
            Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, A.P.P. for respondent – State
                                              ....…

                                  CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                  DATE     : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026

            PER COURT :


            1.         The applicant seeks release on regular bail in

            connection with Crime No.097/2022, registered with Chakur Police

            Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections

            302, 201, 120-B, 212, 216 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

            Code and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the Maharashtra

            Control of Organised Crimes Act.


            2.         The prosecution case is that, on the basis of report
                                               Bail Appln.No.2450/2025
                               :: 2 ::


lodged by one Manmanth Abande, A.D. No.22/2022 was registered

under Section 174 of the Criminal procedure Code. On 19/3/2022,

a dead body of unknown person was found in Gat No.211 in

Chapoli Shivar, where the quarrying work was done. There were

injuries on the body by sharp edged weapons. In the course of

inquiry, it was revealed that some unknown persons committed

murder of said person by assaulting with edged weapons on his

head, face, neck and back. Therefore, F.I.R. came to be lodged by

P.S.I. Tukaram Phad, attached to Chakur Police Station.


3.         On 20/3/2022, C.R. No.92/2022 came to be registered

by Chakur Police for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code against unknown persons. In an attempt to identify the

dead person, the Police found that, Sachin @ Lalya, son of

Shivsamb Davangave, R/o Shirur Tajband, was missing since

18/3/2022. After receipt of inforation, Police called Shivsamb, who

identified the dead body and articles and clothes as that of Sachin.

Shivsamb suspected that accused No.1 Narayan, hatching

conspiracy with other accused, committed murder of his son due to

lane dispute. Accused No.1 Narayan was absconding. On finding

out mobile location of Narayan at Sangarey, Hyderabad, the Police
                                                  Bail Appln.No.2450/2025
                                   :: 3 ::


arrested Narayan and kept him at Police Station, but Narayan

successfully fled away from police custody.           Therefore, C.R.

No.98/2022 is registered against Narayan under Section 224 of the

Indian Penal Code.


4.          During the investigation, it revealed that, the accused

No.1 Narayan, hatching a conspiracy with other accused, gave

contract (supari) to commit murder of deceased Sachin to the

present applicant, his brother and accused No.3 Sudhir for

consideration of providing one Dhaba and amount of Rs.1 Lakh to

them. As per the conspiracy and contract, they took Sachin to

Chapoli Shivar on a motorcycle on the pretext of giving meal and

committed his murder by assaulting him by sickle, knife and stones.


5.          The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the

FIR is false, frivolous and lodged solely to harass the applicant. It is

further submitted that, the applicant has not committed the alleged

offence. Since the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet

has already been filed, no recovery or discovery remains to be

made at the instance of the applicant. Consequently, the further

incarceration of the applicant is no longer warranted. As such,

prayed to allow the application.
                                                 Bail Appln.No.2450/2025
                                :: 4 ::




6.             The learned APP has submitted that, the prosecution

has cited a total of 32 witnesses to prove its case. It is further

contended that, the Investigating Officer has seized various

incriminating articles from the spot, and the offence is of a grave

and serious nature. The prosecution maintains that there is

sufficient overwhelming material on record to establish the

applicant’s complicity in the crime. Furthermore, there is a strong

apprehension that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may

tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses.

Consequently, the learned APP prayed for the rejection of the

application.


7.             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 :


        “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
        well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
                                                   Bail Appln.No.2450/2025
                                 :: 5 ::


        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.)


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.         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.
                                                Bail Appln.No.2450/2025
                               :: 6 ::




10.        Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court in 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. As stated earlier, the

prosecution has collected overwhelming evidence against the

present applicant.


11.        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 possibility of

justice being thwarted.


12.        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 offence.
                                               Bail Appln.No.2450/2025
                               :: 7 ::




13.        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. In the present case, the trial is progressing and further the

prosecution has demonstrated the efforts to conclude the trial.

Considering the seriousness of the offences involved, the

overwhelming material weighs against the applicant.


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

reiterated that when 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.


15.        Upon perusal of record, indicates that, the recovery of

weapons and statements of witnesses, prima facie, establishes

complicity of the applicant in the offence.       Prima facie, the

overwhelming material is collected by the prosecution indicating the

establishing the offence being committed with premeditation.

Moreover, the applicant also has criminal antecedents.


16.        In the light of aforesaid circumstances and the well
                                                 Bail Appln.No.2450/2025
                                :: 8 ::


settled principles discussed above, I am not inclined to exercise

discretion in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the bail application

is rejected.


17.        Needless to state 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.)


fmp/-