Bombay High Court

DEEPAK DHANAJI JAGTAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 11 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant as the prosecution failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of pre‑meditated murder.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC filed by Deepak Dhanaji Jagtap, accused No.2 in a case involving alleged murder, attempt to conceal evidence, and offences under the IPC and Arms Act. The incident on 7 May 2023 involved a quarrel at a hotel between the victim Ajay Manjare and the accused, who were allegedly intoxicated and had prior criminal records. The prosecution alleged pre‑meditated murder and disposal of the body, while the defence argued that the victim instigated the fight and that the evidence did not establish premeditation. The court examined statements of the victim, the hotel owner, and common friends, finding that the facts suggested a spontaneous altercation rather than a planned killing. Considering the applicant’s three‑year incarceration and lack of clear pre‑meditation, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstances of the case justify denial of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC despite the seriousness of the offences.
Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case of pre‑meditated murder and evidence tampering.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history warrants refusal of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 3/25, 4/25
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 201, 302, 34, 364, 404

Subjects

bail
Section 439 CrPC
murder
premeditation
evidence tampering
IPC
Arms Act
high court
Maharashtra

Judgment

36 ba 630 of 2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 630 OF 2026

Deepak Dhanaji Jagtap
Age : 29 years, Occu. : Nil,
Permanent R/o. Osmanabad.
Currently residing at : Yashada
Heights, Second Floor, Jay Bhavani
Nagar, Perne Phata, Tal : Haveli,
District : Pune.
(At present lodged in Pune jail) .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra
Through Rajgad Police Station,
District : Pune
Vide C.R. No. 213 of 2023. .. Respondent

....................
 Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam a/w. Mr. Om N. Latpate, Advocate for
Applicant
 Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for the Respondent – State.
................…

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 11, 2026

P. C.:

Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH 1. Heard Mr. Nikam, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr.
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2026.08.12
18:51:49
+0530 Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent–State.

1 of 6
36 ba 630 of 2026.odt

2. By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure the Applicant i.e. Accused No. 2 is seeking bail in Crime

No.213 of 2023 registered with Rajagad Police Station, District: Pune,

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 404 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and

Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959.

3. There are three accused in the crime. Accused No.1 is Sagar,

Accused No.2 is Deepak, who is the Applicant before this Court, and

Accused No. 3 Tushar. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are already enlarged on

bail by this Court vide order dated 16th July, 2024, a copy of which is

appended at Page No. 418. The victim is Ajay Manjare. The date of

incident is 7th May, 2023. At some time in the night, Ajay Manjare

alongwith other accused persons, went to a hotel and forced the hotel

owner to open the shutter and serve him drinks. After consuming the

drinks, Ajay demanded more drinks, but the hotel owner refused to

serve any further drinks. At that time, one of them entered the hotel

and persuaded the hotel owner to give them drinks. Both Accused Nos.

1 and 2, according to prosecution, were history-sheeters and were

already externed, and had entered the jurisdiction where the hotel was

situated and forced the hotel owner to given them drinks. The hotel

owner obliged them and gave them drinks. Ajay Manjare, the victim

was present and he therefore forcibly removed the mask from the face

2 of 6
36 ba 630 of 2026.odt

of Accused No.2, namely, Deepak, the Applicant before me, and

clicked a photograph of him and Accused No.1. Thereafter, for some

time the accused and the victim had a quarrel. Since both parties were

in an inebriated state, both of them thereafter called their common

friend, namely Tushar Bhukan, who arrived at the scene on his

motorcycle. After looking at the situation and condition of both the

parties, who were quarreling with each other and fighting with each

other loudly, Tushar called his common friend, namely Umesh Vaval,

and informed him that he would drop Ajay Manjare who was in an

inebriated state, at home, for which he also called for a four-wheeler

Swift car to the hotel address. At the same time, Sagar and Deepak i.e.

Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and Tushar i.e. Accused No.3, left along with

Ajay Manjare, and according to the prosecution case Ajay Manjare,

was at that time seriously injured and had sustained a head injury

with a ‘Koyta’, in the confrontation and fight which had taken place

and the real prosecution story to implicate the accused thereafter

unfolded. According to the prosecution, Accused Nos.1 and 2

thereafter took Ajay, rather Ajay’s body, to an undisclosed location and

threw the body 15 meters into the valley to destroy evidence.

4. Mr. Karmakar, learned APP would vehemently argue that the

attempt made by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to destroy evidence cannot be

determined to be non- premeditated, because they were history-

3 of 6
36 ba 630 of 2026.odt

sheeters having antecedents, and they not only killed the victim but

also attempted to destroy the evidence by disposing of the body and

also took over his mobile phone.

5. With able assistance of Mr. Nikam and Mr. Karmakar I have

perused the materials which was place of record. Prima facie, reading

all the statements, which have been recorded by the prosecution, it is

clear that the incident which led to the demise of the victim was, in

fact, triggered by the victim himself. The prosecution case itself

records that Ajay Manjare forcibly removed the face mask from the

face of Accused No. 2 Deepak, and photographed him, and was

attempting to do so with Accused No.1, when the quarrel between the

two started and escalated.

6. It is also prime facie seen from the record that the victim and

the accused persons knew each other, as they had common friends.

Two of the common friends, one of them being added as accused,

namely, Tushar Bhukan, and subsequently released on bail, have

recorded their statements. The phone transcripts between Tushar and

Umesh Vavhal are also placed on record, appended at Page 175

onwards. Prima facie, these transcripts it clearly show that, at the time

of the incident, the victim was in an inebriated state and both the

parties were involved in a fight with each other in an inebriated state.

In that view of the matter, the case put up by the prosecution prima

4 of 6
36 ba 630 of 2026.odt

facie to show that it is a premeditated attempt to eliminate Ajay,

cannot be seen countenanced at this stage.

7. Further, the statement of the hotel owner, who has been

attempted to be stated as an eyewitness on the part of the prosecution,

itself shows that both the parties were having a serious quarrel with

each other, and therefore, in that view of the matter, and considering

the fact that the Applicant has been in incarceration for more than

three years, the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

Therefore the Application is allowed. The Applicant is therefore

released on bail.

8. In view of the above the following order is passed:-

:: O R D E R ::

(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from

prison in connection with Crime No. 213 of 2023;

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing

P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only), with one

surety of the like amount;

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

Rajagad Police Station, Pune, once every month on the first

Monday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.;

5 of 6
36 ba 630 of 2026.odt

(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;

(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(vi) Applicant shall not influence 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.

9. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above

terms.

Rajeshri Aher [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…