Bombay High Court
SAGAR SUDHAKAR BAGULversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the applicant with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Sagar Sudhakar Bagul, sought regular bail for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the Maharashtra Police Act arising from an alleged assault and attempted murder on 29 September 2025. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was present at the scene, shared a common intention to kill, and could threaten witnesses if released. The defence argued that CCTV footage did not show the applicant, his name was absent from the FIR (only appearing in a supplementary statement), and an eyewitness described his involvement as limited to fist and kick blows, emphasizing his clean antecedent record and four‑month pre‑trial detention. The court examined the FIR, CCTV panchnama, and eyewitness statements, finding insufficient proof of the applicant’s presence and noting his lack of prior convictions. Consequently, the court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties, imposing conditions to attend police, refrain from tampering with evidence, and not influence witnesses, while directing the trial court to decide the case on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offence is sufficiently proved to deny bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the charges and alleged risk of witness tampering justify refusal of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean antecedent record and lack of direct evidence warrant grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 3
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 118(2), 140, 190, 191(3), 351(2), 352
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- CCTV
- witness tampering
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- Maharashtra Police Act
- serious offences
Judgment
4-BA-78-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.78 OF 2026
Sagar Sudhakar Bagul ….Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Aniket Nikam along with Ms. Abhilasha Pawar and Mr. Sumit Pawar,
Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. M. G.Patil, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No. 275 of 2025 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik
City, Nashik for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 140, 118(2),
191(3), 190, 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
2. It is prosecution’s case that on 29 th September 2025, the
applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant and his friends with
an iron rod and fired at them with intention to kill them.
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
KADAM
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA panchnama of CCTV footage produced on record shows that the applicant
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.02.09
18:38:20 +0530
Page 1 of 3
4-BA-78-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
was not present at the incident spot. The statement of the eyewitness
shows that the applicant assaulted the first informant with fist and kick
blows. The name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, his name
was mentioned in the supplementary statement. The applicant has no
antecedents. The applicant is behind bars for more than four months and
requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant had common
intention to kill the first informant and his friends. The co-accused fired at
them, but the gun shot missed and hit the car. The applicant was present
at the incident spot. There are statements of the eyewitnesses. If the
applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses,
and hence requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel and perused the documents
produced on record. In the FIR, the name of the applicant is not
mentioned. The CCTV footage panchnama produced on record shows that
the applicant was not seen in the said CCTV footage. The statement of the
eyewitness shows that the applicant assaulted the first informant with fist
and kick blows. The applicant has no antecedents. He is behind bars for
more than four months. Considering these facts, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 275 of 2025
Page 2 of 3
4-BA-78-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik City, Nashik,
on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person
concerned with the case.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
6. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…