Bombay High Court
KUNAL VINOD SAUDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant as the prosecution failed to establish a sufficient nexus to the offence.
Summary
The applicant, Kunal Vinod Saude, aged 21, sought enlargement of bail in a case (C.R. No. 450/2025) concerning the death of a young man on 7 October 2025. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with three co‑accused, was involved in offences punishable under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 35 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, relying primarily on CCTV footage and the identification of the applicant by a police constable. The prosecution failed to produce any material linking the other accused to the crime and offered no evidence beyond the CCTV that the applicant was driving the motorcycle. The court found that the prosecution’s case lacked the necessary nexus and that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail with a bond of Rs. 20,000 and imposed standard conditions, noting that the order would not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence placed before the court, primarily CCTV footage and a police constable's identification, is sufficient to deny bail to the accused under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 35 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
- Whether the applicant’s right to bail can be curtailed in the absence of a clear nexus between him and the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 3(5)
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 35
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- CCTV
- section 103
- section 3(5)
- section 35
- Maharashtra
Judgment
15. BA-3142-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3142 OF 2026
Kunal Vinod Saude .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Himanshu S. Gavit, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for State
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Gavit, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Karmakar, learned APP for State.
2. By this Bail Application, Applicant - accused is seeking
enlargement on bail in C.R. No. 450/2025 registered with Upnagar
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and
3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 along with Section 35 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Date of the incident is 07.10.2025.
3. Present crime indicts 4 accused out of whom accused No. 4 is a
juvenile. Accused No. 1 is the Applicant before me who is 21 years of
age. Case of the prosecution stems from the fact that the first
informant's son who was used to go on his motorcycle every morning
at 5.00 a.m. to visit a particular Gurudwara, on the day of fateful
incident left at 5.00 a.m. but did not return back until 5.40 a.m.
1 of 4
15. BA-3142-26.odt
Complainant and his wife thereafter proceeded to visit the nearby
temple when they were requested by two persons to help the person
who was lying injured on the road. When the complainant and his
wife approached to the said injured person, they found that the said
person was none other than their son. Immediately the injured was
rushed to the hospital but declared dead on arrival.
4. Prosecution case is based on the fact that there was litigation
between the complainant and accused No. 2 - Dadasaheb Sonawane in
the Civil Court with regard to flat premises in which the complainant
was presently residing and the Civil Suit was pending. Save and
except this, there is no material placed on record by the prosecution to
show the nexus of accused No. 2 with the crime. Insofar as accused
No. 1 is concerned, prosecution has referred to and relied upon the
statement made by Police Constable, copy of which is appended at
page No. 144 who after seeing the said CCTV footage has identified
the person driving one of the motorcycle as accused No. 1. Insofar as
accused No. 3 is concerned, prosecution has not been able to throw
light on the nexus of accused No. 3 at all. Accused No.2 is shown to
be a pillion rider along with accused No. 1 as identified by the said
Police Constable. The case of the prosecution virtually lacks all such
ingredients to indict the Applicant in the crime. Prosecution case is
entirely based upon the CCTV footage which is procured from the
2 of 4
15. BA-3142-26.odt
nearly bungalow on the road by which the deceased had gone to
Gurudwara in the morning. Various footages have been obtained
which prima facie show that there were several motorcycles and
scooters which passed on the road between 5.00 a.m. to 5.50 a.m. in
the morning at various points of time. It is seen that the deceased
victim riding hurriedly on his motorcycle and on a curvature may have
slipped on his motorcycle and met with an accident and thereafter was
lying in an injured stage. Save and except this CCTV footage, there is
no other material placed on record by the prosecution to indict the
Applicant. Applicant has therefore made out a prima facie case for
grant of bail.
5. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with C.R. No. 450/2025 ;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty
Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Upnagar Police Station, once every month on the first
Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
3 of 4
15. BA-3142-26.odt
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) 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
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
6. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in
the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
7. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.08.18
20:35:23 +0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…