Bombay High Court

KUNAL KRISHNA KUMBHARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

Bail is granted because the prosecution’s case is purely circumstantial, the chain of circumstances is incomplete, and reasonable doubt exists regarding identification and motive.

Summary

The applicant, Kunal Krishna Kumbhar, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 140(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to the alleged murder of a schoolgirl. The prosecution’s case relied on a confession recorded in a panchnama under Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and a ‘last‑seen’ theory based on statements of two witnesses, without any eyewitness identification or test identification parade. The defence argued that the evidence was purely circumstantial, the chain of circumstances was broken at several stages, and the alleged motive was contradicted by the sister’s statement. The court found that the prosecution had not established a complete chain of circumstances and that reasonable doubt existed regarding motive and identification. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, imposing a personal bond and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the prosecution’s case is based solely on circumstantial evidence and a confession recorded under Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Whether the ‘last‑seen’ theory and the statements of the two witnesses establish a sufficient evidentiary chain to deny bail.
Whether the alleged motive for the murder is adequately proved to justify continued detention.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing the jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 137(2), 140(1), 238
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — s. 23(2)

Subjects

bail
circumstantial evidence
confession
last seen theory
motive
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
criminal procedure
murder

Judgment

903-BA-534-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 534 OF 2026
Kunal Krishna Kumbhar ...Applicant
Versus.
State of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
-----
Mr. Sangram Desai (through VC) a/w Advait Vajratkar and Sanjana
Desai, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent - State.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 23rd September, 2026.
P.C. :

1. Heard, Mr. Sangram Desai, learned Advocate for the Applicant

and Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent – State.

2. By this Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks regular bail in

connection with Crime No. 252 of 2025, registered at Kudal Police

Station, for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 140(1)

and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Mr. Sangram Desai, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states

that the Applicant is the sole Accused in Crime No. 252 of 2025. He

states that Crime No. 252 of 2025 is registered as Sessions Case No. 1 of
Arjun 1
903-BA-534-2026.odt

2026 and is pending before the Court of the Sessions Judge,

Sindhudurg at Oros (“Trial Court”).

4. In brief, the prosecution case is that the First Informant (mother

of the deceased) filed a complaint stating that on 02.08.2025, her

younger daughter, Diksha Timaji Bagave (“deceased”), who was

studying in 12th grade at RPD High School and Junior College,

Sawantwadi (Commerce Branch), left the house saying she was going to

college but never returned. Based on the complaint, the police

investigated and apprehended the Applicant. The prosecution alleges

that the Applicant confessed to the offence.

5. Applicant was arrested on 30.09.2025. Bail Application Exhibit-5

filed in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2026 was rejected by the Trial Court on

22.01.2026.

6. Mr. Sangram Sangram Desai, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

submits that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.

He submits that the prosecution relies entirely on the alleged confession

made by the Accused in the disclosure panchnamas under Section 23(2)

of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. He submits that the other

circumstances on which the prosecution relies to allege that the

Arjun 2
903-BA-534-2026.odt

Applicant committed the offence are the last seen theory, based on the

statements of two witnesses, namely Jagannath Pravin Mahadgut and

Maddan Krushna Gosavi. By referring to their statements recorded by

the police, he submits that, by no stretch of imagination, they can be

said to be eyewitnesses or witnesses to the last-seen theory propounded

by the prosecution. He submits that the place where the body of the

deceased was found is accessible to any person. Further, he submits that

the recovery of the nylon rope alleged to have been used in the crime

was allegedly disclosed by the Applicant from an open space accessible

to the general public at large. In sum and substance, Mr. Sangram

Desai, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the chain of

circumstances is not established and that there is a break in the chain at

each stage. He submits that the Applicant was known to and had a

friendship with the deceased, therefore, merely making phone calls, or

the phone call made by the Applicant being the last call on the

deceased's mobile, cannot by itself indicate that the Applicant is

involved in the crime. He submits that the police called the Applicant

for investigation/interrogation on three dates prior to his arrest on

30.09.2025.

7. Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State, by referring to the

material on record, submits that the confession made by the Applicant,
Arjun 3
903-BA-534-2026.odt

as recorded in the Memorandum of search panchnamas under Section

23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is sufficient to show

the Applicant's complicity in the present crime. She submits that the

place where the deceased's body and the nylon rope were found was

accessible to the Applicant himself, and that the Applicant had

knowledge that said place was not accessible to the general public. By

referring to the Applicant's CDRS, she submits that the call details

establish that the Applicant was in the company of the deceased prior to

her murder. She relies on the statements of two witnesses, namely

Jagannath Pravin Mahadgut and Maddan Krushna Gosavi, in support of

the last-seen theory. She submits that the farm owner's statements

indicate that the Applicant knew the place was isolated and not

accessible to the general public. She submits that the Medical Certificate

of the Applicant indicates injuries caused to the Applicant on his hand,

which injuries can be said to have been caused in the scuffle while he

was strangling the deceased. She submits that the motive to kill the

deceased is that the Applicant was not comfortable with the deceased

being friends with other boys.

8. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates.

9. A perusal of the records in the file of this Application indicates

Arjun 4
903-BA-534-2026.odt

that the prosecution relies on the last seen theory of the two witnesses,

namely, Jagannath Pravin Mahadgut and Maddan Krushna Gosavi, who

claim to have seen the deceased along with the Applicant. On a prima

facie reading of the said statements, there is doubt as to the

identification of the Applicant. The reason for this doubt is that

Jagannath Pravin Mahadgut contends that he received an online

message on 02.08.2025, that the deceased had been killed. Based on

that message, Jagannath Pravin Mahadgut claims to have recollected

seeing the deceased on 02.08.2025, with a person whom he claims to

be the Applicant. His statement is recorded on 19.10.2025. The

statement of Maddan Krushna Gosavi is similar, as he claims to have

seen the deceased in her school dress on a motorcycle. No material on

record indicates how these two witnesses identified the Applicant.

10. Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent – State,

submits that no test identification parade has been conducted by the

Investigating Officer.

11. The prosecution alleges that the motive of the Applicant to

eliminate the deceased was that the Applicant found the deceased to be

maintaining a relationship/friendship with other boys. The prosecution

has recorded the statement of Pratima Timaji Bagve, sister of the

Arjun 5
903-BA-534-2026.odt

deceased. In her statement, Pratima Timaji Bagve has categorically

stated that it is not possible or probable that the Applicant, who had a

friendship with the deceased, would have committed the murder of the

deceased on the allegation or apprehension that the deceased had a

relationship/friendship with other boys.

12. The photographs relied upon by the prosecution of the place from

where the nylon rope, which is alleged to have been used to strangle

the deceased, was recovered, indicate that the place is an open space.

Mr. Sangram Sangram Desai, learned Advocate for the Applicant, would

be justified in his submission that the recovery of the nylon rope was

found in an area accessible to the general public.

13. The statement of the owner of the structure from where the body

of the deceased was recovered prima facie indicates that the structure

was an open structure.

14. With reference to the contention of Ms. Deshmukh, learned APP,

that the injuries on the Applicant's hand would indicate that they were

caused due to the scuffle the Applicant probably had at the time of

strangulating the deceased, cannot be considered at this stage,

especially in view of the opinion of the Medical Officer, Class One,

Arjun 6
903-BA-534-2026.odt

Government Rural Hospital, which is inconclusive.

15. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, prima facie, the chain of

circumstances for limited consideration of this Bail is incomplete.

16. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence,

which will have to be established in trial.

17. In view of the above and more particularly, the statement made

by the sister of the deceased, which would prima facie create doubt

about the motive for the murder of the deceased, the continuation of

the Applicant in jail pending the trial of Sessions Case No. 1 of 2026 is

not warranted.

18. In view of the above, this Application is allowed.

(a) Applicant in Crime No. 252 of 2025,

registered at Kudal Police Station, shall be released

on bail upon furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two

sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2026.

Arjun 7
903-BA-534-2026.odt

(b) Applicant shall not, directly or

indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise

to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

to dissuade that person from disclosing the facts to

the Court or any police officer. Applicant shall not

tamper with evidence in any manner.

his release, provide the Investigating Officer at

Kudal Police Station, with his residential address

and proof thereof, his contact number and must

inform the Investigating Officer of any changes to

this information from time to time.

(d) Applicant shall regularly appear before

the Trial Court, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2026,

whenever the matter is fixed, unless specifically

exempted. If the Applicant fails to appear before the

Trial Court on the fixed date, it will be considered a

breach of condition and the Trial Court will be at

liberty to pass appropriate orders.

Arjun 8
903-BA-534-2026.odt

19. The observations made in this order are prima facie and are

intended to aid the decision on the present Bail Application and shall

not affect the trial in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2026.

20. Bail Application No. 534 of 2026 is disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.09.24
10:36:20
+0530

Arjun 9

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…