Bombay High Court
MANGESH BABURAO SAVKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted to the accused as the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the applicants have been detained for an inordinate period, and there is no risk of tampering with evidence.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered bail applications filed by accused No.1 (Mangesh Baburao Savkar) and accused No.3 (Deepak Ashok Bharudkar) in a murder‑conspiracy case (CR No. I‑198/2021) involving offences under Sections 302, 120B, 279, 337, 338, 304‑A of the IPC and Sections 184, 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The prosecution’s case was based largely on circumstantial evidence, with only one of thirty‑three witnesses examined and the alleged proceeds of crime (Rs. 1.45 crore) already recovered. The applicants had been in custody for nearly four years, and all co‑accused had already been granted bail. The Court, noting the lack of direct evidence, the prolonged incarceration and the bleak prospect of a speedy trial, granted bail to both applicants subject to strict conditions. The order released them on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each and imposed reporting, non‑interference, and residence requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a case where the evidence is primarily circumstantial.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention and the likelihood of a delayed trial justify bail.
- Whether the presence of recovered proceeds of crime and the fact that co‑accused are on bail affect the decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Cr.P.C., 1973 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 279, 302, 304-A, 337, 338
- Motor Vehicle Act — s. 134, 184, 187
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- murder
- conspiracy
- IPC
- Motor Vehicle Act
- pre‑trial detention
- surety
- court conditions
Judgment
21 & 68. BA-3639-26 & 784-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3639 OF 2026
Mangesh Baburao Savkar Applicant
.. (Accused No. 1)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 784 OF 2026
Deepak Ashok Bharudkar Applicant
.. (Accused No. 3)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w Ms. Savvy Kolhekar & Ms. Juhi Kadu,
Advocates for Applicant in BA 3639/26
Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate for Applicant in BA 784/26
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State
Mr. Afroj Shekh, PSI, Mumbai Naka P.S. Nashik City
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Vagal, learned Advocate for Applicant in BA 3639/26;
Mr. Bankapur, learned Advocate for Applicant in BA 784/26 and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for State.
2. Common order is being passed in both the Bail Applications.
3. Present Applications are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973
/ Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking
1 of 4
21 & 68. BA-3639-26 & 784-26.odt
Bail in connection with C.R. No. I-198 of 2021 registered with
Mumbai Naka Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 120B, 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). and under Section 184 and 134/187 of
the Motor Vehicle Act.
4. Applicant - accused No. 1 in Bail Application No. 3639 of 2026
is indicted in the present crime for hatching a conspiracy to eliminate
the victim in association with accused No. 2 and other accused
persons. The role of Applicant - accused No. 3 in Bail Application No.
784 of 2026 is that of remaining present with accused No. 1.
5. There is admittedly a relationship between accused No. 1 and
the deceased victim with regard to purchase of a car. However, the
prosecution case is that accused No. 2 was projected as wife of the
deceased and after his demise, an amount of Rs. 1.45 Crores was
received from the Insurance Company by accused No. 2 which was
transferred to accused No. 1. This amount has been recovered by the
prosecution in the present crime.
6. Insofar as the act in question is concerned, there is no direct
evidence and the evidence is circumstantial on the basis of the
aforesaid motive. Both the Applicants are in jail for 3 years and 9
months and only 1 prosecution witness out of the 33 probable
2 of 4
21 & 68. BA-3639-26 & 784-26.odt
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. In that view of the
matter and considering that the case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence and the entire amount of the proceeds of
crime of Rs. 1.45 crores having been recovered by the prosecution, I
am inclined to consider the case of the Applicants for grant of bail on
the ground of prolonged incarceration since the likelihood of the trial
being completed and concluded in the foreseeable future prima facie
appears to be bleak on the basis of record. It is also seen that all co-
accused have been granted bail by this Court. Hence, both the
Applicants are released on bail on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) Both the Applicants are directed to be immediately
released on bail from prison in connection with C.R.
No. I-198/2021;
(ii) Both the Applicants are directed to be released on bail
on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- each (Rs.
Twenty Five Thousand each) with one or two sureties
in the like amount;
(iii) Applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Mumbai Naka Police Station, once every month on the
first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) Applicants shall co-operate with the conduct of trial
3 of 4
21 & 68. BA-3639-26 & 784-26.odt
and attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless
specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if they do so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) Applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicants shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of their 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 Applicants.
7. 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.
8. Both the Bail Applications are allowed and disposed of in the
above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.28
19:56:22
+0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…