Bombay High Court
DILIP DNYANESHWAR PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Dilip Dnyaneshwar Pawar, sought bail under Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for offences of murder, criminal conspiracy and common intention (IPC §§302, 120‑B, 34). He had been in custody for 5 years and 4 months pending trial, with only 15 of the 56 prosecution witnesses examined and the next trial date scheduled for 10 October 2026. The State argued that only two witnesses remained and that the period of bail granted during the COVID‑19 pandemic should not be counted towards his incarceration, while also alleging that the applicant’s father had threatened a relative of the first informant. The Court rejected the State’s contention on the COVID‑19 period, held that the prolonged pre‑trial detention was unreasonable, and found no compelling reason to deny bail despite the alleged threat. Consequently, the Court granted bail with a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and a series of reporting and non‑interference conditions, and ordered the application disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite a prolonged pre‑trial detention of over five years.
- Whether the period of release during the COVID‑19 pandemic should be excluded from the calculation of total incarceration for bail considerations.
- Whether alleged threats by the applicant’s father against a relative of the first informant constitute a ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- long incarceration
- IPC 302
- IPC 120‑B
- IPC 34
- Section 439 CrPC
- Section 483 B.N.S.
- COVID‑19 prison release
- witness tampering
Judgment
36. BA-752-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 752 OF 2026
Dilip Dnyaneshwar Pawar .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w Ms. Abhilasha Pawar & Mr. Sumit Patil,
Advocates for Applicant
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State
Mr. Amol B. Jagtap i/by Mr. Siddharth Bane, Advocate for First
Informant
H.V. Waghmare, PSI, Khopoli Police Station, Dist. Raigad
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Nikam, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Newton,
learned APP for State and Mr. Jagtap, learned Advocate for First
Informant.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.
52/2018 dated 16.04.2018 registered with Khopoli Police Station,
Dist. Raigad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
1 of 4
36. BA-752-26.odt
3. Applicant is incarcerated for a period of 5 years 4 months
pending trial. Trial has commenced. 15 out of the probable 56
witnesses as cited by the prosecution have been examined.
4. Learned APP would persuade the Court not to grant bail since
according to her instructions only 2 witnesses remained to be
examined and the next date in the Trial Court is 10.10.2026. She
would further argue that during the Covid period, the Applicant was
released on bail and therefore that period should not be counted for
incarceration. I refuse to agree with such submission made by learned
APP primarily because this Court has already taken a stand and a
decision that even during the Covid period, it was on the volition of
the State that the prisoners were released for their better upkeep and
health reasons and therefore assuming that even if they were released
during the Covid period on bail, that period will also have to be
counted towards the total incarceration for the purpose of long
incarceration of the Applicant in jail. The purpose of bail is to ensure
that the Applicant attends trial. The purpose is not to indefinitely keep
the Applicant in jail at the whims and caprice of the prosecution.
There is no material placed on record as to who are the only two
witnesses. The time of 5 years 4 months itself is humongous.
5. In so far as the first informant is concerned, Mr. Jagtap apprises
the Court that last year, the father of the Applicant had threatened
2 of 4
36. BA-752-26.odt
another relative of the first informant and therefore, the Applicant
should be denied bail because of such conduct.
6. On prima facie reading of the FIR filed by the concerned first
informant's family member, the said contents of the FIR are prima
facie unbelievable and it does not inspire any confidence of this Court
at all. Needless to state that Applicant cannot be endlessly kept in jail
for the trial to conclude. There is absolutely no possibility of the trial
being concluded in the near foreseeable future and therefore,
considering the aspect of long incarceration, I am inclined to allow the
present Application. Hence, the Applicant is released on bail on the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released on bail
from prison in connection with C.R. No. 52/2018;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
only) with one or two sureties in the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Khopoli Police Station, once every month on the first
Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
3 of 4
36. BA-752-26.odt
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.
7. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in
the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.29
15:10:42 +0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…