Bombay High Court

VINOD @ VINAYAK BALASAHEB BARVEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

Bail was denied as the seriousness of the offence, direct evidence, and risk to the trial outweighed the applicant’s claim of delay.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vaishali Anil Tikam, who is accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for the murder of a man on 26 November 2021. The applicant had been in custody for more than four and a half years with the trial still pending and argued that there was no progress, no prior antecedents, and that the weapon was recovered after ten days. The prosecution presented direct eyewitness testimony, a recovered sickle, and the deceased’s dying declaration identifying the accused, and warned that the applicant might abscond or intimidate witnesses if released. The court examined the charge sheet, the statements of witnesses, and the cited precedents, finding the facts materially different from the cases relied upon by the applicant. Given the seriousness of the offences, the existence of direct evidence, and the risk to the trial process, the court declined to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in a murder case (IPC s.302) with life imprisonment or capital punishment pending, despite a prolonged pre‑trial detention.
Whether the risk of absconding or tampering with witnesses justifies denial of bail.
Whether the delay in trial and lack of progress warrant a bail order.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 201, 302

Subjects

bail
murder
IPC 302
IPC 201
pre‑trial detention
witness intimidation
high court

Judgment

17-BA-272-2026 (CR).doc

TIKAM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 272 OF 2026

VAISHALI Vinod @ Vinayak Balasaheb Barve ...Applicant
ANIL
TIKAM VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
_________________________________________________________________
Date:
2026.04.04
13:29:07 +0530 Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w. Ms. Palak Kasliwal, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Prashant P. Jadahv, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 24th MARCH, 2026.
P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for

the State.

2. By this Application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in

Crime No. 185 of 2021 registered with Satpur Police Station, Dist. Nashik

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

3. It is prosecution's case that on 26/11/2021 around 7.00 a.m.

Applicant murdered the brother of the first informant on the ground of

enmity.

4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that

Applicant is behind bards more than 4 and 1/2 years. There is no progress

Page 1 of 4
17-BA-272-2026 (CR).doc

TIKAM

in the trial. Earlier liberty was granted to the Applicant to file fresh bail

application after six months, if there is no progress in the trial. Thereafter

only charge is framed. The statements of the eye witnesses were recorded

after six days of the incident. Applicant has no antecedents. It may take

time to conclude the trial . Learned counsel further submitted that weapon

used in the crime was not recovered at the first instance , but it is

recovered after 10 days of the incident. Learned counsel further submitted

that as per statement of witnesses Mahesh Tupe, Sachin Gangurde and

Vasant Avhad were suspecting accused.

Learned counsel further submitted that the certificate of doctor

is not produced on record to show the fitness of mind of the deceased as it

is alleged that he gave oral dying declaration and requested to allow the

application..

Learned counsel relied on Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @

Rabin Vs. The State of West Bengal1 , Amol Vitthal Vahile Vs. The State of

Maharashtra2 , Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 3, Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State

of Chhattisgarh4, Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central Bureau of

Investigation5 , Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central Bureau of

Investigation6.

1 In Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No(s).11589 /2024 decided on 02/09.2024.
2 In Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.)No(s). 13755/2023 decided on 29/01/2024.
3 Criminal Appeal No. 726/2025 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 17918/2024 decided on 13/02/2025.
4 Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Cri.)No. 15971/2024 decided on 14/02/2025.
5 Criminal Appeal No. 693/2-21 arising out of SLP (Cri.)No. 3610/2020 decided on 27/07/2021.
6 In Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No(s).3618/2020 decided on 27/07/2021.

Page 2 of 4
17-BA-272-2026 (CR).doc

TIKAM

5. It is contention of learned APP that Applicant assaulted the

deceased with sickle on ground of enmity. there are eye witnesses to the

incident. The weapon used in the crime recovered at the instance of the

applicant. The charge is framed. Trial is in progress. If applicant is released

on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and

requested to reject the application.

6. I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and

documents produced on record.

7. In first information report, it is mentioned that when the

deceased was in injured condition, he was taking the name of applicant

and uttering the word 'koyta koyta' and pointing out to his injuries. The

statement of witnesses shows that there was dispute between the applicant

and deceased on the ground of worker's union. The statement of witness

Sandesh Gangurde, who has witnessed the incident, shows that altercation

was going on between the applicant and the deceased and at relevant time

applicant took out sharp weapon from his car, it was rapped in paper, he

assaulted on the neck of the deceased for 3 to 4 times and he ran away

from the incident spot by sitting in his car. The statement of other

witnesses also show that the applicant assaulted the deceased with sickle.

The deceased also uttered the name of the applicant and uttered the words

'koyta koyta' and pointing out his injury caused to neck. It shows that

Page 3 of 4
17-BA-272-2026 (CR).doc

TIKAM

there is direct evidence against the Applicant. Applicant has assaulted the

deceased on public place in broad day light. There is direct evidence

against the applicant. Though it is contention of learned counsel for the

Applicant that he is behind bars more than 4 years, but, the punishment

for the offence committed by the applicant is life imprisonment and capital

punishment. Trial is in progress. Charge is framed. I have gone through the

case laws cited by learned counsel for the Applicant. The facts of the and

cited cases and present case are different.

8. Considering these facts I am not inclined to allow the

application and I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) Bail Application No. 272 of 2026 is rejected.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…