Bombay High Court
JITENDRA PANDURANG GHOLAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the prosecution case is purely circumstantial, the trial has been unduly delayed, and the applicants have no antecedents, subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered two bail applications arising from the same murder case (Crime No.334 of 2024) involving alleged kidnapping and killing over a land dispute. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, Jitendra Pandurang Gholap and Abhishek Prakash Gholap, were present near the crime scene and had motive, relying on circumstantial evidence. The defence argued that there was no direct evidence linking the applicants, they had no prior criminal record, and the trial had been delayed for over eighteen months. The court noted the lack of substantive evidence and the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and ordered that both applicants be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The trial court was directed to continue the trial on its merits without being influenced by this order.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail despite the prosecution's case being based solely on circumstantial evidence
- Whether the delay of more than one year and six months in the trial warrants the grant of bail
- Whether there is a risk of the applicants absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses if released
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- trial delay
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- murder
- land dispute
Judgment
901-BA-550-2025 WITH 2352-25.doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 550 OF 2025
Jitendra Pandurang Gholap … Applicant
NILAM
Digitally signed
by NILAM
Versus
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.01.20
14:58:57 +0530 The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2352 OF 2025
Abhishek Prakash Gholap … Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
________________________________________________________
Mr.Niranjan Bhavake a/w Mr.Shushant Tayade, Mr.Drishti Madhani
a/w Mr.Anurag Ramekar, Ms.Vaishnavi Chore i/b Mr.Sushant Tayade,
for the Applicant in BA No.550 of 2025.
Mr.Pranav Girme, for the Applicant in BA No.2352 of 2025.
Mr.B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr.Y.S. Jadhav, PSI, Otur Police Station, Pune
________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 17th JANUARY, 2026
Page 1 of 4
901-BA-550-2025 WITH 2352-25.doc
N.S.Kamble
P.C. :
. These two Applications are arising out of the same Crime,
hence I am deciding these Applications by this common order.
2. By these Applications, the Applicants are seeking regular bail
in Crime No.334 of 2024 registered with Otur Police Station, Pune,
for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5)
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short).
2. It is prosecution’s case that, the Applicants kidnapped the
deceased on 1st August 2024 and murdered him on account of land
dispute.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicants that,
the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no
evidence against the Applicants to connect with the crime. The
Applicants are behind bars for more than one year and six months.
There is no progress in the trial. They have no antecedents and
requested to allow the Application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that, the Applicants had
enmity with the deceased due to land dispute, on that ground, he
kidnapped and murdered him. The Applicants had motive to kill the
Page 2 of 4
901-BA-550-2025 WITH 2352-25.doc
N.S.Kamble
deceased. The CDR of the Applicants shows that they were present
near the spot. It shows their involvement in the crime. If Applicant
released on bail he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
Hence, requested to reject the Application.
5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and
documents produced on record.
6. The prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence.
To prove the chain of circumstances, cogent and complete evidence is
required. The Applicants are behind bars for more than one year and
six months. There is no progress in the trial.
7. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Applicant-Jitendra Pandurang Gholap be
released on bail in Crime No.334 of 2024 registered with
Otur Police Station, Pune, on furnishing PR bond of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like
amount.
(ii) The Applicant-Abhishek Prakash Gholap be
released on bail in Crime No.334 of 2024 registered with
Page 3 of 4
901-BA-550-2025 WITH 2352-25.doc
N.S.Kamble
Otur Police Station, Pune, on furnishing PR bond of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like
amount.
(iii) The Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence
and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own
merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.
(v) Applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
8. All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…