URKULUS JALDYA KALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:37763
                                                                           BA254-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2026
                  Urkulus s/o Jaldya Kale                  ... Applicant
                  R/o Kharatwadi, Pimpalgaon Pisa
                  Tq. Shrigonda Dist. Ahmednagar

                  VERSUS

             1.   The State of Maharashtra                     … Respondent
                  Through the Parner Police Station
                  Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar


            Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane, Advocate for the Applicant
            Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the State


                                  CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                    Dated : 20th August, 2026
            PER COURT :-


            1.       This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

            Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime No. 526

            of 2025 registered with Parner Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for

            offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya

            Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was arrested on 2 July 2025. The

            investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. His post-

            charge-sheet application below Exhibit 4 in Sessions Case No. 277 of

            2025 was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

            Ahmednagar, on 19 January 2026.


            2.       The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that the deceased

            Pratiksha, aged about 16 years, was the daughter of the first informant

            Ritesh Bhosale. About a month before the incident, Asmita, the

                                                                               1 of 8
                                                                BA254-26


daughter of the co-accused Ashish Bhosale, had died by drowning.

Ashish suspected Pratiksha to be responsible for that death. It is alleged

that he had thereafter threatened to kill Pratiksha. The present

applicant is Ashish's father-in-law. On 1 July 2025, when Pratiksha did

not return home, the informant's minor son Shivam disclosed that he

had seen Ashish and the present applicant chasing Pratiksha towards

the canal/hill side. During the ensuing search, Pratiksha was found

lying in the bushes with bleeding injuries on her head. Crime No. 526

of 2025 was consequently registered.


3.       The post-mortem material records multiple ante-mortem

injuries, including lacerated wounds on the back of the head, a

depressed comminuted fracture in the occipital region and laceration of

the cerebellum. The probable cause of death is stated to be laceration

of the cerebellar hemisphere due to a depressed comminuted fracture

of the skull caused by a blow of a hard, blunt and heavy object on the

back of the head. The supplementary medical opinion states that the

injuries described in columns 17 and 19 could be caused by a stone;

that injury Nos. 2 and 3 are grievous; and that the injuries were not

possible by an accidental fall. The papers further show seizure from the

spot of three stones bearing bloodstains and cotton swabs used for

collecting the stained material. The prosecution also relies upon the

circumstance that one slipper of the absconding co-accused Ashish was

found near the canal and upon call-detail/tower-location material

relating to a mobile number standing in the applicant's name.


                                                                     2 of 8
                                                                BA254-26


4.         Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no

eyewitness to the actual assault and no specific overt act or recovery is

attributed to the applicant. The case against him rests principally on the

version of Shivam, the 12-year-old brother of the deceased. It was

urged that Shivam is a tutored witness and that there are material

differences between his first statement and the later statement recorded

before the Magistrate, particularly as regards the time and surrounding

details of the alleged sighting. Reliance was also placed upon the

statement of Pradeep Bhosale, who is stated to have seen the deceased

alone on the hill at about 1:30 p.m. on the date of the incident, without

seeing the applicant there.


5.         The further submission is that the mobile number relied upon

by the prosecution, though registered in the applicant's name, was in

fact being used by his daughter Usha, the wife of the absconding co-

accused. The handset was seized from Usha and not from the applicant.

Usha has filed an affidavit stating that the phone was in her possession

and use even on the date of the incident. It was therefore submitted

that the tower location of that number cannot place the applicant at the

spot. The applicant is about 50 years old, resides at Shrigonda,

approximately 50 to 60 kilometres away, has no criminal antecedents,

has remained in custody since 2 July 2025 and is no longer required for

investigation. According to the defence, the applicant has been

implicated merely because he is the father-in-law of the absconding co-

accused.


                                                                     3 of 8
                                                                BA254-26


6.       Learned APP opposed the application. It was submitted that

Shivam's two statements are consistent on the central circumstance that

he saw both accused chasing the deceased. Though his first statement

does not specify the precise time, his later statement places the sighting

at about 2:00 p.m. This is said to find support from Pradeep's statement

that he had seen the deceased sitting alone on the hill near the canal at

about 1:30 p.m. The two accounts, according to the prosecution, place

the deceased in the relevant area and the applicant with the co-accused

in pursuit of her within a short interval. The variation relied upon by

the defence is a matter for cross-examination and cannot be used to

discard the child witness at the stage of bail. The medical evidence, the

three bloodstained stones and the condition of the spot support a

homicidal assault by a hard, blunt and heavy object and rule out an

accidental fall. It was further submitted that Ashish is still absconding;

the applicant is his father-in-law; and the material witnesses are closely

related to the parties. His release would therefore carry a real risk of

pressure upon the witnesses and assistance being rendered to the

absconding accused.


7.       Applying those principles, the homicidal nature of the death is,

for present purposes, prima facie evident from the post-mortem

material. The victim was a 16-year-old girl and the injuries were

concentrated upon the head, including a depressed fracture and

laceration of the cerebellum. The medical opinion that the injuries were

possible by a stone and were not possible by an accidental fall assumes


                                                                     4 of 8
                                                                BA254-26


relevance when read with the seizure of three bloodstained stones from

the spot. The medical papers do not fix the precise time of assault; they

indicate that the injuries were sustained within about 24 to 48 hours

before the post-mortem. That absence of a medically precise time does

not, at the bail stage, sever the prosecution's temporal case if the

witness accounts are otherwise read together. The accusation is

therefore of exceptional gravity. Gravity alone cannot decide bail, but it

supplies the setting in which the nature of the material and the role

attributed to the applicant must be assessed.


8.       The principal circumstance against the applicant is statements

of witness Shivam . The statements presently available may contain a

variation in the narration of time and certain surrounding details.

However, their core is that Shivam saw the applicant and Ashish

chasing Pratiksha towards the canal/hill side, where she was later

found dead. Whether the variation is material, whether the witness was

tutored, and how much weight his testimony ultimately deserves can be

determined only after he is examined and cross-examined. At this

stage, a natural witness cannot be discarded merely because he is a

minor and the brother of the deceased. To return a definitive finding on

his reliability now would be to conduct the very mini-trial which bail

jurisdiction forbids.


9.        The statement of Pradeep that he saw Pratiksha sitting alone

on the hill near the canal at about 1:30 p.m. does not, by itself,

demolish the prosecution case. Shivam's later statement places his

                                                                     5 of 8
                                                                 BA254-26


sighting of both accused chasing Pratiksha at about 2:00 p.m. prima

facie narrates the two statements furnish geographical as well as

temporal proximity. Pradeep places the deceased in the relevant area

and, about half an hour later, Shivam claims to have seen the two

accused chasing her there. The first statement of Shivam may not

specify the precise time, but it does not state a time inconsistent with

2:00 p.m.; it records that he informed the relatives later in the evening.

Whether the later specification of time is an improvement affecting his

credibility is a matter for evidence. At present, Pradeep's statement is

capable of co-existing with, and providing context to, Shivam's

statement rather than necessarily contradicting it. Its exact effect must

be left for trial.


10.       The defence concerning the mobile phone does require due

notice. The handset was allegedly seized from Usha and her affidavit

asserts that she was its actual user, although the subscription stood in

the applicant's name. At this stage, without evidence identifying the

person who was actually carrying the handset at the material time, the

tower-location circumstance cannot be treated as decisive against the

applicant. Even if that circumstance is kept aside, however, the

prosecution case does not disappear, because Shivam's statement

directly places the applicant in the company of the absconding co-

accused while chasing the deceased towards the relevant area.


11.         It is true that no weapon or other incriminating article is

shown to have been recovered from the applicant and that the earlier

                                                                     6 of 8
                                                                 BA254-26


threats and the immediate motive are more directly attributed to

accused Ashish.     Yet the accusation is not founded merely upon

relationship. The prosecution attributes to him physical presence and

concerted conduct with Ashish immediately preceding the discovery of

the deceased. At this stage in present case, the absence of a separate

overt act or a recovery from the applicant does not, by itself, neutralise

the allegation against the present applicant.


12.      The Court has also considered that the applicant has no

reported criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed and he

has undergone custody since 2 July 2025. These are relevant

considerations. The custody so far, however, is not of such

extraordinary length, having regard to the charge and the stage of the

case, as would eclipse the prima facie material and the risks to the trial.

The co-accused Ashish continues to abscond. The applicant is his

father-in-law, while Shivam and the other material witnesses belong to

the same extended family circle. In this setting, the apprehension of

influencing the child witness or facilitating the absconding accused

cannot presently be regarded as merely speculative.


13.       On an overall assessment, this Court is not satisfied that a

case for release on bail is made out at this stage. This conclusion rests

on the limited prima facie assessment required for bail and not upon

any final determination of the truthfulness, admissibility or weight of

the prosecution evidence.



                                                                     7 of 8
                                                                         BA254-26


                                         ORDER

           (1)   The Bail Application is rejected.

           (2)   It is clarified that the observations made in this order are

                 confined to the decision of this bail application. The Trial Court

                 shall decide the case on the evidence led before it,

                 uninfluenced by any prima facie observation made herein.




                                                     ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                             8 of 8