Bombay High Court
PRASHANT @ BABU MARUTI JABARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The court held that no prima facie evidence links the applicant to the murder, and therefore bail was granted.
Summary
The applicant, Prashant @ Babu Maruti Jabar, was arrested in connection with the murder of Akshay, alleged to have been facilitated by co‑accused Gurunath and Karan after a disputed property sale. The prosecution charged him under IPC sections 120(B), 302, 404 and 201, relying primarily on a witness statement and a call‑detail record (CDR) suggesting his presence at the crime scene. The applicant’s counsel argued that the sole witness, Deepak Rajput, actually exonerated the applicant, and that the CDR and recovered items (motorcycle and footwear) did not conclusively link him to the offence. The State and the informant contended that the CDR placed the applicant at the spot and that the recovered items implicated him. The court examined the evidence and held that, on a prima facie basis, there was no material connecting the applicant to the murder, noting his clean record and low flight risk. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond and surety conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the applicant under sections 120(B), 302, 404 and 201 of the IPC.
- Whether the witness statement and CDR constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and risk of flight justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120(B), 201, 302, 404
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- evidence
- call detail record
- witness statement
- prima facie
- IPC
- Indian Evidence Act
Judgment
12-BA-4433-2024.ODT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4433 OF 2024
Prashant @ Babu Maruti Jabar …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Mohd. Taha Khan a/w Ms. Sejal Jain i/b Ms. Monika Chippa,
for the Applicant.
Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State.
Mr Viral Mukte, Appointed Advocate through Legal Aid for the
Respondent No.2 (Informant).
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 8th APRIL, 2026
PC:-
1. Applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No. 214 of
2023 registered with Chitalsar Police Station, District-Thane, for
the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 302, 404 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).
2. In short, it is a case of the prosecution that co-accused
Gurunath was in need of money and hence entered into the
agreement of sale with Akshay (deceased) of his house which
stood in the name of his mother. It was agreed to be sold to
deceased Akshay for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh
Fifty Thousand only). Accordingly notorised document was
prepared of the transaction. It is further case of the prosecution
that the amount was paid by Akshay to the mother of Accused
Page 1 of 4
th
8 April, 2026
12-BA-4433-2024.ODT
Gurunath, but the possession of the premises was not handed
over to him. On 29 th August 2023, Akshay was called by
Gurunath in the evening for taking possession of the house in
question. All accused were standing near TMC school and
waiting for arrival of deceased Akshay. Deceased came
alongwith witness Deepak Rajput to the said spot. Thereafter
Akshay was taken by co-accused Gurunath and Karan alongwith
them. There are allegations against the present Applicant that
he alongwith the co-accused committed murder of the deceased
Akshay and destructed the evidence of the crime. In connection
with this crime, Applicant came to be arrested on 31 st August
2023. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet is filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that except for
the statement of the witness Deepak Rajput, there is no other
evidence in order to even remotely connect the Applicant in
crime. It is his submission that in fact the statement of Deepak
shows that the Applicant had not been to the spot of the
incident alongwith the co-accused and deceased. It is his
submission that the statement of this witness excludes the
involvement of the Applicant in this crime. Insofar as recovery of
the motorcycle and footwear of the deceased, pursuant to the
memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is
concerned, he submits that there is no evidence to show that the
motorcycle as well as footwear belonged to the deceased. He
therefore submits that since the Applicant has no criminal
history and as there is no evidence to connect him with the
crime in question, he is entitled for bail.
Page 2 of 4
th
8 April, 2026
12-BA-4433-2024.ODT
4. Learned APP as well as learned Counsel for the Informant
oppose grant of bail. It is their contention that there is evidence
in the form of CDR indicating the presence of the Applicant at
the spot of incident at the time of occurrence thereof. It is
further argued by referring the statement of Deepak that this
witness has dropped the Applicant at D-mart which is a place
near to the place of incident. Further reference is made to the
recovery at the instance of the Applicant i.e. motorcycle and
footwear of deceased. On the basis of these submission, they
seek dismissal of application.
5. In order to attribute the offence of murder, the
prosecution must prima facie show his involvement in
committing murder of the deceased. Prima facie, the statement
of witness Deepak excludes Applicant’s presence alongwith the
co-accused and deceased. No doubt, the witness states about he
being dropped deceased at D-mart and even accepting the same
to be a place near to the place of incident, that by itself will not
lead to the conclusion that the Applicant was a party to the
murder. In fact this fact supports the case of the Applicant, as
the CDR indicating his presence nearby the spot does not
become incriminating circumstance against him. Apart from this
prima facie perusal of the chargesheet does not indicates any
further investigation being done with regard to the motorcycle
as well as footwear to be belonging to the deceased. As such
there is no evidence to call the recoveries at the instance of
Applicant to be incriminating.
Page 3 of 4
th
8 April, 2026
12-BA-4433-2024.ODT
6. As such prima facie there is no evidence to show an
involvement of the Applicant in the crime of murder. Applicant
has no criminal history. He is not likely to flee from justice.
Hence, order.
ORDER
i) Criminal Bail Application stands allowed in
connection with Crime No. 214 of 2023 registered
with Chitalsar Police Station, District-Thane, for
the offence punishable under Sections 120(B),
302, 404 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ii) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on furnishing
P. R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
iii) The Applicant not to interfere in the evidence of
prosecution, in any manner, whatsoever.
iv) Applicant to attend all dates of hearing before the
Trial Court, unless exempted by specific order.
v) Any breach of the aforestated condition shall result
forthwith into cancellation of bail.
7. In view of the above, Application stands allowed and
disposed of accordingly.
8. It is clarified that the above observations are made on
prima facie consideration of the material on record and the
same shall not bind the parties during the final hearing of the
Trial Case.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
VDMokal/-
Page 4 of 4
th
8 April, 2026
Checking your session…