Bombay High Court
KIRAN SHIVAJI KHANDAGALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Kiran Shivaji Khandagale, arrested under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 for the alleged murder of Santosh Dhamale. The applicant pleaded for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, citing a medical emergency of his wife and the prolonged pre‑trial detention of over a year. The State argued that the applicant was the principal assailant, acted with intent, and posed a threat to society. The Court noted procedural irregularities in the arrest (non‑compliance with Sections 47 and 48 BNSS), the lack of a recovered weapon, contradictory witness statements, and the absence of any eye‑witness directly implicating the applicant. Weighing the constitutional right to liberty against the seriousness of the offence, the Court held that bail should be granted with strict conditions, emphasizing that the order is limited to bail and does not address the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- The arrest of the applicant complied with the procedural requirements of Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the alleged murder and arms offences.
- Whether the medical emergency of the applicant's wife justifies enlargement of bail.
- Whether the evidentiary material (lack of weapon recovery, contradictory witness statements) warrants pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 4
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 47, 48, 483, 492
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- procedural lapse
- murder
- arms act
- evidentiary insufficiency
- medical emergency
- constitutional rights
- Section 483 BNSS
- Section 47 BNSS
- Section 48 BNSS
Judgment
BA.2618.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2618 OF 2026
Mr. Kiran Shivaji Khandagale .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Ms. Snigdha Khandelwal a/w Mr. Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh,
Advocates for Applicant.
Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. M.M. Garad, PSI, Khed Police Station.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Khandelwal, learned Advocate for Applicant and
Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. Present Bail Application is filed by Applicant / Accused No.1
under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
seeking enlargement on medical urgency pursuant to his arrest in FIR
No.325 of 2025 registered with Khed Police Station, Pune for offences
punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. On 23.03.2026, Sessions Court, Khed – Rajgurunagar, Pune
rejected Applicant’s bail application on ground of parity. Trial has not
yet commenced. Applicant having no antecedents is 27 years old and
1 of 9
BA.2618.2026.doc
was arrested on 04.06.2025. Applicant is incarcerated for 1 year 3
months and 12 days in Yerwada central jail.
4. Briefly stated, on 03.06.2025 at around 10:30 pm deceased
victim – Santosh Dhamale and his friend first informant – Ashok
Gargote after consuming alcohol came out of the bar. Deceased –
Santosh Dhamale went to speak with Applicant and Accused No.2 was
already standing in front of bar. At that time, a quarrel ensued on
account of allegation that Accused No.2 had molested daughter of the
deceased, turned into scuffle between them. Applicant and Accused
No.2 allegedly took out concealed weapons (Koyta) and assaulted
deceased victim who later succumbed to his injuries.
5. Ms. Khandelwal, learned Advocate for Applicant relying on
medical report of Applicant’s wife dated 02.08.2026 would submit that
she is suffering from Typhoid and Dengue and was hospitalized. She
would submit that Applicant has a 4 year old son who is dependent
upon his ill wife as there is no other family member available for
providing livelihood and support to both of them.
5.1. She would submit that Applicant was arrested immediately
after occurrence of incident without following any due course of
procedure of arrest as laid down in the statute. She would submit that
grounds of arrest were not communicated to Applicant in accordance
with the mandatory requirements of Sections 47 and 48 of Bharatiya
2 of 9
BA.2618.2026.doc
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby vitiating the arrest and
rendering continued detention of Applicant unsustainable in law.
5.2. She would submit that 29 witnesses cited by prosecution are
yet to be examined which indicates that the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude. She would submit that futher
incarceration of Applicant pending trial would amount to pre-trial
punishment. She would submit that prosecution failed to attribute any
motive or intention of Applicant for commission of alleged offence. She
would submit that no CCTV footage has been recovered or collected by
the Investigating Officer in support of the case of prosecution.
5.3. Furthermore, she would submit that alleged weapon used for
commission of crime was not recovered from the Applicant. She would
submit that entire case against the Applicant rest purely on
circumstantial evidence as no independent eyewitness statement has
been recorded to establish role of Applicant in the alleged crime. She
would submit that the purported eyewitnesses i.e. Ashok – first
informant and Vandana – wife of deceased, who claimed to be
eyewitnesses to the incident, have given contradictory statements and
therefore, there is no reliable eyewitness for implicating the Applicant.
5.4. Moreover, she would submit that prosecution chose not to
examine persons at or near the crime scene who were independent
witnesses namely, Sanjay Bhau Shinde – man at the bar counter.
3 of 9
BA.2618.2026.doc
Therefore, she would submit that Applicant be allowed to enlarged on
bail.
6. PER CONTRA, Ms. Gotad, learned Advocate for Respondent
– State would vehemently oppose this bail application and submit that
Applicant was the one who had called Accused No.3 and made
demand of weapons (Koyta). She would submit that Applicant also
showed where the seized weapons were concealed. She would submit
that Applicant is the key accused accompanying Accused No.2 and he
was also involved in preparation and commission of offence.
6.1. She would submit that while causing the injury to deceased
victim, Applicant was fully conscious and aware that the natural
consequences of his actions are likely to cause death of the deceased
victim. She would submit that postmortem report and inquest
panchanama of deceased itself are evident and suggestive which
demonstrate the intention of the Applicant to cause fatal injuries that
would result in the death of the deceased.
6.2. She would submit that Applicant’s contention that he acted
in private defense is absolutely and materially contradictory to his
actions. She would submit that a normal person would not have given
multiple fatal blows with a weapon while acting in private defense.
She would persuade the Court to consider that the gruesomeness with
which the crime was executed was such that Applicant would be a
4 of 9
BA.2618.2026.doc
threat to the Society if he is enlarged on bail, hence his bail application
be rejected and dismissed.
7. I have heard Ms. Khandelwal, learned Advocate for Applicant
and Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent – State and with their able
assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by them
have received due consideration.
8. Ms. Khandelwal has drawn my attention to the statements of
first informant, wife of deceased and son and daughter of deceased. It
is seen that there are prima facie contradictory statements made by all
of them regarding the incident in question. It is seen that their
statements have only made the present case more complicated. It is
seen that their statements only clarify that two accused persons
assaulted the deceased victim with a sickle without any one of them
being an eye-witness to the incident of assault. However, prosecution
has not specified the specific role of Applicant in commission of alleged
crime.
9. It is clearly visible from the FIR that except first informant
none of the family members of deceased victim were present initially at
the crime scene when the alleged incident took place. Furthermore, it
is seen that first informant himself has stated that when Accused No.2
threatened him by saying “you come here”, first informant fled out of
fear from the crime spot to inform the wife of the deceased victim.
5 of 9
BA.2618.2026.doc
Therefore, it is seen that first informant has also not been an eye-
witness to the whole incident happening. It is clear that thereafter first
informant and family members of deceased victim arrived the crime
scene, however by that time deceased victim was already lying
unconsciously on the ground.
10. In view of the above, recording statement of independent
eye-witness was crucial. It is seen that despite availability of many
independent eye-witnesses at the crime scene, it being a pubic place,
statements of none of them have been recorded by the prosecution in
order to solve this intricacy. It is not denied that Applicant is innocent,
however there has been no single eye-witness account recorded who
could have stated which accused has given the blow to the deceased on
which body part and with which weapon. Therefore it is seen that
allegations put forth are yet to be proved in trial which has not yet
commenced. It is seen that charges are yet to be framed and 29
witnesses in the charge-sheet are to be examined during trial and
hence possibility of the trial commencing and being completed in the
near foreseeable future is bleak.
11. It is seen from the FIR that there was earlier rivalry between
the Accused No.2 and deceased victim and there was no motive
whatsoever against the present Applicant. It is very much clear that
aforesaid incident has occurred unfortunately due to earlier rivalry or
6 of 9
BA.2618.2026.doc
dispute between Accused No.2 and deceased victim where it is alleged
that Applicant accompanied Accused No.2 and grievously assaulted
deceased who later succumbed to his injuries.
12. It is settled law that object of grant of bail to an accused of
an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object
behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial.
Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an
indefinite period violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, there is need to keep in view the principle that grant of bail
is the rule and committal to jail an exception. I am of the opinion that
seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration
in refusing bail.
13. Moreover, it is seen that arresting Applicant without
following procedure established by law was violative of his
fundamental rights and his detention since arrest for more than a year
is against principles of law. It is mandatory to follow the provisions of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 while arresting an accused
to avoid further consequences of procedural lapses.
14. At this stage, on the basis of the material on record prima
facie case for bail is made out as the merits thereof will be adjudicated
during trial. Mere suspicion without concrete evidence cannot take the
place of certainty. In view of the aforesaid observations, following
7 of 9
BA.2618.2026.doc
order is passed.
15. Applicant’s Bail Application is allowed subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- ( Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or two sureties of the
like amount;
(ii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and / or
change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to
time, as applicable; and
(iii) After his release from jail, Applicant shall report to the
Investigating Officer as and when called for;
(iv) Applicant shall attend the trial Court on first Tuesday of
every month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. to mark his
presence. If the first Tuesday of the said month falls on a
holiday and / or non Court working day, the Applicant shall
mark his presence on the next working day;
(v) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the trial Court on all dates unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments,
8 of 9
BA.2618.2026.doc
if he does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for
cancellation of this order;
(vi) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner; and
(viii) In case of any infraction of the above conditions
and / or two consecutive defaults in marking his attendance
before trial Court, it shall attract the provisions of Section
492 of BNSS i.e. for cancellation of bail.
16. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made herein
above in this order.
17. Bail Application is allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.17
11:16:26 +0530
9 of 9
Checking your session…