Bombay High Court
AMIT MADHUKAR PAWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Holding
On a prima facie basis, the applicant did not participate in the alleged offences and is therefore entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, accused No.3 in a murder case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, sought bail after being incarcerated for over six months. The incident involved a white car driven by co‑accused Santosh Pawar, who repeatedly ran over the victim, resulting in death. The applicant was alleged only to have been sitting on a motorcycle nearby and no evidence linked him to the assault or the vehicular attack. The trial court had earlier rejected his bail plea, prompting this application before the High Court. After reviewing witness statements, CCTV footage and noting the applicant’s absence from the scene, the judge found no prima facie case against him. Consequently, the court ordered his enlargement on bail with standard conditions. The decision is limited to the bail application and does not prejudice the trial court’s eventual judgment on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant’s alleged presence on a motorcycle constitutes participation in the offences charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the applicant sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether bail should be granted under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 3(5), 49, 54, 55
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- prima facie
- non‑participation
- accused rights
- cautionary conditions
Judgment
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 4_BA_637_2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2026
Amit Madhukar Pawar …Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Keral Mehta, for the Applicant.
Mr. Mayur S. Sonavane, APP for the Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Madan Gupta a/w Shrishti Singh and Priti Jain, for the
Intervenor.
Sr. PI – Gulzarilal Phadtare, Shrinagar Police Station, Thane
City, present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 17TH FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his
enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 697 of 2025
registered with the Shreenagar Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 3(5), 49
54 and 55 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short
‘BNS’). There are in all four accused. The Applicant is Accused
No. 3.
Page 1 of 8
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 4_BA_637_2026.doc
2. The brief facts of the case are that all the parties
i.e., the Complainant, his friends and accused persons are
residents of the same locality. On 2nd September, 2025 at
08:30 p.m. the First Informant along with his brother and
friends had gone to see Ganapati idols. They purchased
cigarettes and were chatting as they passed by. They suddenly
came upon some quarrel between two groups of residents of
the locality. The co-accused namely, Santosh Pawar, was
assaulting Vasant Tokare. The Complainant and another
resident called Babu went to intervene and resolve the
quarrel. At that time, another co-accused - Mahesh Pawar
came in a white car and gestured to Santosh Pawar to sit in
the car. It is alleged that the present Applicant was standing
nearby on his two-wheeler. Santosh Pawar and co-accused-
Mahesh Pawar assaulted Babu on his face with fists. Vasant
Tokare started to run away from the location. Babu left the
location for the police station to lodge a complaint. Thereafter,
Santosh Pawar sat in his white car and started the same. His
younger brother, Mahesh Pawar, also went and sat in the rear
Page 2 of 8
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 4_BA_637_2026.doc
seat. Santosh then bumped on Vitthal with the car, he drove
the car over Vitthal, reversed it and again drove over him. The
Complainant went to Vitthal but Santosh threatened him and
also gestured that he will drive the car over him as well. In the
process, the Complainant-Shankar also suffered injuries.
When he tried to get up, he saw Vitthal’s skull pieces were
strewn on the road, his right hand was broken and he was
lying in a pool of blood. Subsequently, Vitthal succumbed to
his injures and the Complainant also suffered grievous
injuries. The FIR was registered against Mahesh Pawar and
the present Applicant. Mahesh and present Applicant were
arrested on 4th September, 2025. Santosh was arrested on 15 th
September, 2025. Mahesh Patil is absconding.
3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail
before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. However, by
order dated 30th January, 2026, the said application was
rejected. Hence, the Applicant has made the present Bail
Application for the relief as prayed.
Page 3 of 8
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 4_BA_637_2026.doc
4. Mr. Mundargi, learned counsel for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the said
offence. He submits that the only role attributed to the
present Applicant is that he was sitting on his motorcycle a
little away from the place where the incident occurred. He
submits that the Applicant was in no way responsible for the
acts. He further submits that even the statements of witnesses
also corroborate that the Applicant was merely sitting on the
motorcycle nearby and there is no active or overt act
attributed to him. He further submits that the Applicant is
unnecessarily made to suffer incarceration. He thus, prays that
the Applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Mr. Sonavane, learned APP representing the State,
attempted to implicate the present Applicant in the alleged
offence by referring to certain statements of witnesses, which
also corroborate Complainant’s story that the Applicant was
also present on the spot of incident. He submits that the
offence alleged is serious in nature and Accused No.4 is yet to
Page 4 of 8
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 4_BA_637_2026.doc
be apprehended. He, therefore, prays that the application be
rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the record of the case with their
assistance.
7. Admittedly, the story of the First
Informant/Complainant is consistent with the story stated in
the statements of the witnesses. I have also seen the CCTV
footage of the said incident. It clearly shows a white car being
driven over the victim two-three times in a gruesome manner.
It is alleged by the prosecution that the driver of the car was
co-accused Santosh and the person sitting in the car with him
was his brother and co-accused Mahesh Pawar. The CCTV
coverage corroborates the prosecution case regarding two co-
accused in the white car, purposefully and mercilessly driving
over the deceased victim till his head was a pulp beneath the
tyres and his limbs were torn from his torso. The images are
disturbing. However, the present applicant is not seen on the
Page 5 of 8
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 4_BA_637_2026.doc
spot. He is alleged to be sitting on his motorcycle across the
road. Admittedly, it appears that the present Applicant was
found to be sitting on his two-wheeler nearby the spot of
incident. There is nothing attributive to the present Applicant.
Prima facie it appears that he has not participated in
commission of the alleged offence. The Applicant has suffered
incarceration for more than six months.
8. In these circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge
the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as under:-
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with
one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court
concerned on each and every date unless exempted
by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
Page 6 of 8
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 4_BA_637_2026.doc
iii) Since all the parties belong to and reside in
the same locality, the Applicant shall not enter the
jurisdiction of Thane City except for the purpose of
attending the Trial Court on scheduled dates and
reporting the Police Station;
iv) The Applicant shall also attend the Police
Station concerned once in a month between 11:00
a.m. to 02:00 p.m., till the charges are framed;
v) If the Applicant has not deposited his
passport, if any, the Applicant shall deposit the same
with the Police Station concerned;
vi) The Applicant shall not leave India, without
the permission of the Trial Court;
vii) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to
influence or contact the Complainant, witnesses or
any person concerned with the case;
viii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of
residence and contact number immediately after
Page 7 of 8
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 4_BA_637_2026.doc
being released and / or change of residence or
mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court
seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer
of the Police Station concerned;
ix) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct
of the trial;
x) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions
shall entail cancellation of bail.
9. The Bail Application is allowed in the above terms
and is accordingly disposed of.
10. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the
learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)
Page 8 of 8
th
17 February 2026
Checking your session…