Bombay High Court
VIKAS DEEPAK SINGversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail was granted to the accused, subject to conditions, without prejudice to the trial on the merits.
Summary
Vikas Deepak Singh was charged with murder, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation under IPC sections 302, 323 and 504 for allegedly stabbing his co‑worker Raju Patil during a workplace altercation. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony that the two had a history of fights and that Singh used a kitchen knife to inflict fatal injuries. Singh’s counsel argued there was no pre‑meditation, that the incident arose from a spontaneous fight, and that Singh had been in custody for over four years, warranting bail. The State’s counsel relied on the eyewitness accounts but did not dispute the facts. Justice Milind N. Jadhav, after considering the length of incarceration and lack of proven pre‑meditation, granted bail with standard conditions, noting that the order was limited to bail and not a determination on the merits of the murder charge.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder, hurt and intimidation under IPC sections 302, 323 and 504.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention (over four years) warrants bail despite the seriousness of the offence.
- Whether the absence of pre‑meditation and the circumstances of a spontaneous fight affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 323, 504
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- pre‑meditation
- custodial delay
- criminal procedure
Judgment
1 ba 3259 of 2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3259 OF 2026
Vikas Deepak Sing .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w. S. Kolhekar and Juhi Kadu, Advocate for
Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent – State.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 19, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Vagal, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr.
Nakhwa, learned APP for the Respondent–State.
2. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking bail in connection
with CR No. 283 of 2022 registered with Baramati Taluka Police
Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The Applicant is arraigned as sole accused in the present for
having committed murder of co-worker Raju Patil @ Ganesh
Prabhakhar Chavan. Both of them were employed in a restaurant call
Digitally
Matoshri Macchi Khanaval in different department. Mr. Raju Patil was
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date: handling the Veg Food Department, whereas Vikas Deepak Singh was
2026.08.20
20:47:53
+0530
Rajeshri Aher
1 of 5
1 ba 3259 of 2026.odt
handling the Roti Department. Two days prior to the date of the
incident, on two occasions, there was a minor scuffle and fight
between the two with regard to the admonishment of the Applicant
Raju Patil by informing him that he was not supposed to enter the
Tandoor department and his work was delegated to the Roti
department.
4. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have all
unanimously stated that they had witnessed the argument, friction and
the tension between the two on both the previous two precursor days
when they both had confronted each other. The matter also reached
the owner of the restaurant, who summoned them, but, only the
Applicant visited him and the deceased–victim was away at Baramati.
On the fateful day of the incident, the first informant who was one of
the employee in another department of the same restaurant got a call
that both Vikas Singh and Raju Patil were abusing and beating each
other and were having a fist fight. The fight between the two escalated
to a certain extent and then it got out of hand spilled out of the
restaurant premises, which is prima facie seen from the spot
panchanama appended at page 45 of the Application. The fight was
incidentally witnessed by many eyewitnesses, and in that fight Vikas
Singh got hold of a kitchen knife from the restaurant premises and
inflicted three blows on the cheek, stomach and chest causing injury to
Rajeshri Aher
2 of 5
1 ba 3259 of 2026.odt
the victim Raju Patil. Unfortunately, the said blow was fatal, which
resulted in the victim succumbing to his injuries. Mr. Vagal vehemently
argued that there was no premeditation, nor any mens rea to effect the
ultimate act, namely, the murder of Raju Patil, and precursor incidents
which occurred on the two previous days having been witnessed by all
be taken into account. He would also submit that the trial has
commenced and three witnesses have been examined, but the period
of incarceration of the Applicant, who has been in custody for more
than four years and three months, be therefore considered by this
Court since the trial would take a long time to be completed.
5. The learned APP for the Respondent Mr. Nakhwa has drawn my
attention to the eye witnesses accounts, appended at Page Nos. 39 and
40, and with his able assistance has perused the same. Prima facie,
there is no denial of the aforesaid facts which are recorded by the
Court, but in view of the appealing submissions made by Mr. Vagal and
aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to grant the present Application and
release the Applicant on bail. Therefore the Application is allowed.
The Applicant is, therefore, released on bail.
6. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with Crime No. 283 of 2022;
Rajeshri Aher
3 of 5
1 ba 3259 of 2026.odt
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only), with
one surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Baramati Police Station, Pune, once every month on the first
Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.;
(iv) 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 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 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.
Rajeshri Aher
4 of 5
1 ba 3259 of 2026.odt
7. 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.
8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Rajeshri Aher
5 of 5
Checking your session…