Bombay High Court

SAGAR JAYRAM INDULKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 7 October 2026
Disposal: Rejected

Holding

Bail was denied to the applicant.

Summary

The applicant, Sagar Jayram Indulkar, sought bail in a Sessions case (No.533/2022) involving charges under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Sachin Nanavare. The prosecution alleged a long‑standing enmity and a verbal altercation on 08‑04‑2022 that led to the accused murdering the deceased, supported by CCTV footage showing the accused with the victim. The applicant argued that he had been in custody for over four and a half years, that many material witnesses did not support the prosecution, and that the prosecution was delaying witness examination, warranting bail. The respondent contended that the seriousness of the offences, the existence of incriminating CCTV evidence, and the pending examination of remaining witnesses indicated a risk of tampering and justified denial of bail. The Court noted that the trial was scheduled to conclude within a few months and, given the gravity of the charges, declined to grant bail, directing the prosecution to produce the remaining witnesses on the trial date. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder, abetment of disappearance of evidence, and common intention, considering prolonged pre‑trial detention and pending trial schedule.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34

Subjects

bail
murder
IPC
pre‑trial detention
serious offence
criminal procedure

Judgment

P.H. JAYANI                                               913 BA3055.2025.DOC


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3055 OF 2025

Sagar Jayram Indulkar                                      …. Applicant
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                 …Respondent


Mr. Sushan N. Mhatre, appointed for the Applicant.
Ms. S.K. Gajare, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. P.G. Kamble, PSI, Kashimira Police Station, present.


                            CORAM:        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                            DATED :       7th OCTOBER, 2026

P.C. :-

1.        Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2.        The applicant seeks his release on bail in Sessions Case
No.533/2022 pending before the learned District Judge-6 and
Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane arising out of Cr.No.231/2022
registered with Kashimira Police Station, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-
Virar Police for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), on the report dated
08.04.2022 filed by Mr. Subhash Hiraman Rathod.

3.        The prosecution case is that, prior to the incident, there was
love relations between sister of accused No.2 and the deceased
Sachin Nanavare. Since then, there was enmity between the
deceased and the accused side. It is alleged that deceased had
shown the houses of the applicant and accused No.2 when the
police had come to apprehend them in connection with a case, due
to which they were angry at the deceased. There had been previous


                                 Page 1 of 3
P.H. JAYANI                                            913 BA3055.2025.DOC



disputes and quarrels between the deceased and the accused. On
the night of 08.04.2022, a verbal altercation took place between
deceased and the accused and the deceased abused the accused
persons and referred them as “Chhakka”. Therefore, both the
accused has developed grudge against the deceased. Consequently,
both the accused committed murder of the deceased on or around
08.04.2022.

4.       Mr. Mhatre, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that the applicant is behind bars for last more than four years and
6 months. Majority of the material witnesses have not supported
the prosecution case. However, the prosecution is taking
undesired time to examine its witnesses. Therefore, the applicant
is entitled for bail.

5.       Ms. Gajare, the learned APP submitted that there is CCTV
footage on record which indicates that just before the murder, the
deceased was seen in the company of both the accused. Till date,
the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. Only Investigating
Officer and two Panch witnesses are remained to be examined.
The examination-in-chief of said two panch witnesses is already
recorded. Now, the CA report is available and the case before the
trial Court is fixed on 17.10.2026. Ms. Gajare submitted that on
17.10.2026, the prosecution is going to examine all the witnesses.
Therefore, the panchas could be cross-examined on that date. The
offence is of serious nature. In this background, and considering
the fact that the trial is likely to be over within two to three
months, I am not inclined to grant the bail relief as prayed for.

6.       As a result, the application is rejected.




                                 Page 2 of 3
                P.H. JAYANI                                          913 BA3055.2025.DOC



                7.       The prosecution is directed to produce the witnesses on
                17.10.2026. The trial Court is requested to record their evidence
                on the said date.

                8.       It is clarified that any observation made in the present
                Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application.
                The trial Court shall decide the said case without getting
                influenced by any of the said observations.




                                               (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
       Digitally
       signed by
       PREETI
PREETI HEERO
HEERO JAYANI
JAYANI Date:
       2026.10.09
       20:36:10
       +0530




                                              Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…