Bombay High Court
PRADIP BALRAM GARAIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail was granted to the accused on the condition that he complies with the stipulated conditions, as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.
Summary
The applicant, Pradip Balram Garai, was the sole accused in a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the killing of Sushant Karmakar, the first husband of his second wife, Tanushri Chand. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on CCTV footage showing an unidentified person handling a knife and on Tanushri’s identification of the applicant as the suspect; no direct or substantive circumstantial evidence linked the applicant to the crime. The applicant contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case and that he was being framed due to marital discord. The court examined whether the material on record satisfied the threshold for denial of bail and concluded that mere suspicion could not replace concrete evidence. Accordingly, the court granted bail with a cash bond of Rs.25,000 and a set of strict conditions, while reserving the right to cancel bail for any breach.
Issues considered
- What constitutes a prima facie case for granting or denying bail in a murder trial under Section 302 IPC?
- Whether the CCTV footage and the victim's widow's identification alone are sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- prima facie evidence
- CCTV
- identification
- criminal procedure
Judgment
BA.3227.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3227 OF 2026
Pradip Balram Garai .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Harsh Kashyap, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nathwa, APP for Respondent – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 20, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kashyap, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Yogesh M. Nathwa learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. Applicant is arraigned as sole accused in an offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in
connection with FIR bearing CR. No.40 of 2023. Complaint is lodged
against an unknown person by the landlord of the premises when he
found the deceased tenant lying in a pool of blood on 21.01.2023.
3. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the
first wife of Applicant had passed away in 2015 due to cancer.
Applicant had a son from his first wife who was studying along with
another boy called Sian whose mother Tanushri Chand was a divorcee.
4. Tanushri Chand and the Applicant used to frequently meet
1 of 5
BA.3227.2026.doc
each other and their friendship gradually transformed into a love
affair. Subsequently, Applicant and Tanushri Chand solemnized their
marriage. Applicant and Tanushri along with their two children resided
together at Ubale Nagar. Tanushri's son Sian used to visit his father
(deceased victim Sushant Anil Karamkar) and he used to pay for Sian's
education. Applicant objected to Sian visiting his father and therefore
several quarrels would occur between Applicant and Tanushri.
5. Case of prosecution in arresting Applicant is that Applicant
suspected infidelity between Tanushri and deceased victim Sushant
Karmakar. On 13.01.2023, Tanushri and Applicant had another quarrel
after which she and Sian left Applicant’s house and they both began
started residing separately at Wanawadi.
6. Deceased Sushant Karmakar first husband of Tanushri was
murdered by unknown person on 21.01.2023. Case of the prosecution
is based upon the CCTV footage obtained from a nearby medical store
which shows that some person in the CCTV footage moved suspiciously
and transferred a knife like weapon from his bag into his pocket. This
identification of the suspect was made by Tanushri on watching the
CCTV footage. She has indicted the Applicant who is her second
husband for committing the murder of her first husband.
7. Save and except CCTV footage there is no other material to
indict the Applicant. There is no direct evidence. The evidence is
2 of 5
BA.3227.2026.doc
circumstantial. Statement of Tanushri is appended at page No.42. All
that it states is that Applicant is travelling on motorcycle near the
building of Sushant Karmakar where he was residing. Save and except
this statement, there is nothing more to pin point the role of the
Applicant. The Applicant’s case is that on account of marital discord
with Tanushri the Applicant is framed. Prima facie the evidence shown
against the Applicant is based on the CCTV footage only. At this stage,
the material on record does not make out a prima facie case against
the Applicant as the merits thereof will be adjudicated during trial.
Mere suspicion without concrete evidence cannot take the place of
certainty.
8. Hence, 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/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount;
(ii) Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash
bail of Rs.25,000/- for his release immediately and file
undertaking that he will provide one or two sureties in the
like amount of Rs.25,000/- within a period of four weeks
after his release which shall be accepted by the Trial Court.
Applicant shall provide surety as directed;
3 of 5
BA.3227.2026.doc
(iii) Before his actual release from jail, Applicant shall
furnish his address where he proposes to reside after his
release from jail to the concerned Police Station and also to
the trial Court;
(iv) After his release from jail, Applicant shall report to the
Investigating Officer as and when called for;
(v) 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 presence on the next working day;
(vi) 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,
if he does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for
cancellation of this order;
(vii) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(viii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner; and
(ix) In case of any infraction of the above conditions and /
4 of 5
BA.3227.2026.doc
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.
9. 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.
10. Bail Application is allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.08.20
11:36:40 +0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…