Bombay High Court
SAMADHAN DNYANOBA MHASKEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant on a provisional basis.
Summary
The applicant, Samadhan D. Mhaske, was arrested as accused No.3 in a murder case (CR No. 315 of 2023) involving offences under Sections 302, 120‑B, 364, 392, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the victim was strangulated in a flat and his body disposed at Tamhini Ghat, but the post‑mortem report indicated multiple stab injuries and no evidence of strangulation. The applicant argued that there was no direct evidence, no investigation into the alleged rope purchase, and that CCTV footage could have clarified the facts; he also highlighted his clean record, three‑year pre‑trial detention, and recent loss of his father. The learned judge found the prosecution’s case to be prima facie weak and noted the lack of investigative material, concluding that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the court granted provisional bail with a cash security of Rs. 25,000 and imposed standard conditions, while expressly reserving judgment on the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a serious offence involving murder and related charges given the lack of direct evidence and investigative lapses.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 201, 302, 34, 364, 392
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Section 302
- Section 120-B
- Section 364
- Section 392
- Section 201
- Section 34
- provisional bail
- pre‑trial detention
- investigation
Judgment
41-ba-3629-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3629 OF 2026
Samadhan D. Mhaske .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Zaid Anwar Qureshi, Advocates for Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent - State.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Qureshi, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent - State.
2. By this Bail Application, Applicant is seeking enlargement on
bail in C.R. No. 315 of 2023 registered with Chinchwad Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 364, 392, 201
r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Applicant before me is arraigned as accused No.3 in the
present crime. There are two other accused persons. It is seen that
between accused No.2 and deceased victim, there was a transaction of
Rs.30,00,000/- which the victim was repeatedly requesting the accused
No.2 to return him the money. The case of prosecution is that accused
No.2 invited the victim to his flat in Aerocity Society, Ubale Nagar,
Wagholi and at the same time accused No.2 also took aid and
assistance of co-accused No.1 and present Applicant for commission of
said crime.
Meera Jadhav 1 of 4
41-ba-3629-26.doc
4. The specific case of prosecution is that victim was
strangulated in the flat and murdered and his body was thereafter
disposed off in a ghat area called Tamhini Ghat which is at a distance
of 74 kms. Postmortem report prima facie does not give any evidence
whatsoever of strangulation which therefore nullifies the theory of
prosecution that one of the co-accused person had bought a rope for
Rs.40 from a shop to commit the said act. The car of the victim and his
body were both found in the valley in Tamhini Ghat. The distance of
74 kms could not have been traversed without any prima facie material
evidence having been placed on record. The society called Aerocity
would undoubtedly have CCTV camera. They would undoubtedly have
security, who would register the ingress and exit of persons in the
society.
5. There is no investigation done whatsoever in that direction
to persuade me to accept the prosecution’s case. It is prima facie seen
that death of the victim occurred due to multiple stab injuries. The
Applicant is a vegetable vendor, has no antecedents. Applicant had
been a common friend and it is prosecution's case that all friends
including the victim had met at the residence of accused No.2 and had
a drinking session together. However, pursuant to that particular
episode there is nothing which is placed on record to persuade me to
consider the prosecution’s case as probable. There is no direct evidence
whatsoever. The Applicant is incarcerated for the past 3 years without
Meera Jadhav 2 of 4
41-ba-3629-26.doc
the trial commencing or for that matter concluding in the near future.
6. In view of the above, Applicant has made out a case for grant
of bail. Therefore, following order is passed:-
(i) Applicant – Samadhan D. Mhaske is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
Crime No. 315 of 2023;
(ii) The Applicant is granted provisional bail in view of the
fact that the Applicant lost his father ten days ago.
Accordingly, considering the request made by Mr.
Qureshi, the Applicant is granted provisional bail upon
furnishing cash bail of Rs. 25,000/-. (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand only);
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Chinchwad 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
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;
Meera Jadhav 3 of 4
41-ba-3629-26.doc
(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.
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
hereinabove in this order.
8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.22
20:29:11 +0530
Meera Jadhav 4 of 4
Checking your session…