NANASAHEB KADUBAL MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:23731
                                                                            950-BA-905-26.odt
                                                 1


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           947 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 905 OF 2026

                                 Nanasaheb S/o. Dadubal More
                                           VERSUS
                                   The State Of Maharashtra

                                             ......
          Mr. Sopan G. Bobade, Advocate for Applicant
          Mr. S.V. Hange, APP for Respondent-State
                                             ......

                                          CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                          DATE        : 17 JUNE, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard learned counsel Mr. S.G. Bobade, Advocate for the applicant

          and the learned APP for respondent-State.


          2.     By the present application, the applicant seeks his release on bail in

          connection with Crime No. 376 of 2025 registered with Walunj Police

          Station, District Chh. Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under

          Sections 103 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.


          3.     Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present

          application is preferred after filing of the charge-sheet. He submits that the

          prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. According to him,

          there is no direct evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of

          the alleged offence. He submits that initially the crime was registered

          against an unknown person and during the course of investigation the
                                                                   950-BA-905-26.odt
                                         2

applicant came to be implicated merely on the basis of an alleged

relationship between the applicant and the deceased. Learned counsel

submits that except for the said circumstance, there is no material

demonstrating the involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime. He

further submits that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has

already been filed. Nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the

applicant and, therefore, his further custodial detention is not necessary. On

these grounds, he seeks grant of bail.


4.     Per contra, learned APP strongly opposes the application. He submits

that the prosecution has collected sufficient material during the course of

investigation indicating the involvement of the applicant in the crime.

According to him, though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the

circumstances collected by the investigating agency constitute important

links in the chain of events and point towards the complicity of the

applicant. He submits that the nature and gravity of the offence are serious

and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail.

He, therefore, prays for rejection of the application.


5.     I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel assisting the

prosecution. I have also perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the material

placed on record.
                                                                  950-BA-905-26.odt
                                       3

6.     The record reveals that initially the FIR came to be registered against

an unknown person. The statement of the grandfather of the deceased

indicates that the deceased had started vomiting blood and, therefore, her

parents were informed. During the course of investigation, it surfaced that

the present applicant was allegedly having an affair with the deceased.

Prima facie, this appears to be the principal circumstance relied upon by the

prosecution against the applicant.


7.     Admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is

no eyewitness account of the incident. At this stage, a detailed examination

of the circumstances collected by the prosecution is neither necessary nor

desirable. The evidentiary value of the material collected during

investigation and the completeness of the chain of circumstances are matters

which would be considered by the Trial Court during the course of trial.


8.     It is not in dispute that the investigation is complete and the charge-

sheet has already been filed. Nothing is pointed out to show that any further

custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. In the facts of the

present case, continued custody of the applicant as an undertrial prisoner

would not serve any useful purpose. Hence, the following order:


                                     ORDER

I.     The application is allowed.
                                                                      950-BA-905-26.odt
                                          4

II.        Applicant – Nanasaheb S/o. Kadubal More be released on bail in
connection with Crime No. 376 of 2025 registered with Walunj Police
Station, District Chh. Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under
Sections 103 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing a
Personal Recognizance Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following
conditions:

(a)        Till conclusion of the Trial, the applicant shall not enter the Village
Murmi, Taluka Gangapur, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagr.


(b)        The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the Trial
Court on every effective date, unless specifically exempted by the Trial
Court.


(c)        The applicant shall not shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence.


(d)        In the event of breach of the condition, it will be open for the
prosecution or the complainant to approach the concerned Court for
cancellation of bail.


III.       Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie
in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present bail application.
The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in
this order while deciding the case on its own merits.



                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE
S P Rane