Bombay High Court
MANGESH @ SAGAR SHARAD RAHATALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Mangesh @ Sagar Sharad Rahatal, was charged under multiple IPC sections including murder (302) in a dispute between two families that escalated to the use of weapons. He had been in custody for over two years while all other co‑accused had been released on bail. The applicant contended that the FIR statements were prima facie inconsistent with a police constable’s report regarding the discovery of the victim’s body, and argued that parity with the co‑accused warranted his release. The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the length of pre‑trial detention, the contradictory statements, and the fact that a co‑accused of greater involvement had been granted bail. Finding that the applicant’s continued incarceration was unwarranted and that bail could be safely imposed with strict conditions, the court granted bail. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and did not address the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder case involving multiple serious offences under the IPC.
- Whether the alleged contradictions between the FIR and the police constable’s statement constitute a prima facie ground for bail.
- Whether parity with co‑accused who have been released on bail mandates the applicant’s release.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 326, 427, 504
Subjects
- bail
- Section 439
- murder
- IPC
- prima facie evidence
- parity
- pre‑trial detention
- bail conditions
Judgment
7.BA.3461.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3461 OF 2026
Mangesh @ Sagar Sharad Rahatal .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w. Mr. Savvy Kolhekar and Ms. Juhi Kadu,
Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for Respondent – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Vagal, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Palkar, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular Bail in connection
with C.R.No.161 of 2024 registered with Wavi Police Station, District
Nashik for offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 324, 323,
143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short ‘IPC’).
3. Applicant is indicted in a crime for committing murder
alongwith 12 other accused persons. All other accused persons have
been enlarged on bail save and except the Applicant. Role attributed
to the Applicant as per the FIR is on the basis of Applicant having used
1 of 5
7.BA.3461.2026.doc
a wooden log lying nearby to assault the deceased victim.
4. Briefly stated, a quarrel took place between the Rahatal and
the Admane family, who were neighbors and in that quarrel, fist blows
were initially exchanged which escalated to such an extent that
wooden sticks, iron rods and wooden logs lying around were used to
assault each other.
5. However, the statement of the police constable who had
gone to inquire pursuant to the initial quarrel between the same
parties on the very day of the incident is to the contrary. The said
statement is annexed at page No.96 of the Application and it states
that after the initial quarrel between the two families, a police
complaint was lodged and the police were called and when he went to
inquire about the state of affairs, at that time, the police constable was
approached by a child witness, who informed him about the
whereabouts of the body of the deceased victim lying behind the
house/structure where the families were residing.
6. In that view of the matter, the statements made in the FIR
are prima facie contrary to the statement which has been recorded
when the victim's body found by the police constable. That apart,
Applicant is incarcerated for more than 2 years and 5 months. The trial
will take an unduly long period of time to commence and for that
matter, conclude.
2 of 5
7.BA.3461.2026.doc
7. The role of the co-accused, namely Accused No.2 is far
greater than Applicant before me and he has been enlarged on bail.
The bail order being on page No.253 of the Application persuades me
to consider the case of Applicant to be enlarged on bail on parity.
8. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and
findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Mangesh @ Sagar Sharad Rahatal is
directed to be immediately released from prison in
connection with CR. No.161 of 2024;
(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 or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Wavi Police Station, once every month, on the first
Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall
attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;
(iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial
and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,
3 of 5
7.BA.3461.2026.doc
unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall
entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;
(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 residential address and mobile telephone
number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating
Officer of any change in his residential address or
mobile telephone number, as and when such change
occurs; and
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicant.
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
4 of 5
7.BA.3461.2026.doc
hereinabove in this order.
10. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.16
20:06:41 +0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…