Bombay High Court
NARAYAN YAJINDAR BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The court granted bail to the convicted appellant, suspending the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
Summary
Narayan Yajindar Bhosale was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his daughter by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze, allegedly over a dowry dispute following her inter‑caste marriage. After serving more than twelve years in custody, he filed an interim bail application. The trial court had earlier denied bail, relying on the victim's dying declaration. The High Court, however, considered recent Supreme Court precedents (Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Suleman v. State of Uttar Pradesh) and, despite the seriousness of the offence, granted bail, suspending the sentence pending the appeal. The bail order required a bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, periodic police attendance, and compliance with address disclosure, with provisions for cancellation upon defaults. The interim application was allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a person convicted under Section 302 IPC may be released on bail pending appeal after prolonged incarceration.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and the existence of a dying declaration preclude bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court decisions in Saudan Singh and Suleman are applicable to justify bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Section 302 IPC
- dying declaration
- dowry dispute
- appeal
- suspension of sentence
- high court
Judgment
307-ia 664-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 664 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL NO. 436 OF 2017
Narayan Yajindar Bhosale … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
__________________________
Mr. Anoop Lahote (through VC) for the Applicant.
Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 12th JUNE, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP.
2. This is an application for bail through jail. However, learned counsel
now appears and submits that he is instructed to appear on behalf of the
applicant-original accused No.1.
3. The applicant-original accused No.1 was convicted by the trial Court
for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code
causing the death of his daughter Simran @ Mungadi by pouring kerosene
on her and setting her on fire. The applicant is now seeking bail.
4. It is the prosecution case that Simran @ Mungadi had performed
love marriage. Due to this, the applicant was demanding money from his
Amk 1/4
307-ia 664-26.doc
daughter Simran and her husband as according to him, it was a custom in
their community that at the time of daughter’s marriage, the father of the
daughter is given money. Some amount was given by Simran and her
husband to her father i.e. the applicant but the applicant was demanding
more money, specially in view of the fact that it was an inter-caste
marriage. On 25th February, 2014 at about 7.00 a.m., the applicant came
to the matrimonial house of his daughter Simran and poured kerosene and
set her on fire. All these facts are stated by Simran in her dying
declaration, Exhibit 48 which was recorded by PW 8 PSI Tadakhe. Simran
sustained 97% burn injuries and died on account of the same.
5. By an Order dated 18th July, 2017, the application for bail was
rejected by this Court as this Court was not inclined to grant bail
considering that the dying declaration Exhibit 48 clearly shows the
involvement of the applicant in the crime. This appeal is of the year 2017.
The applicant is in custody for more than 12 years. It may not be possible
for us to hear the appeal finally on priority considering the much older
matters which are pending.
6. Learned APP opposed the application stating that the offence is
serious in nature.
7. In such view of the matter, following the dictum of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC
Amk 2/4
307-ia 664-26.doc
Online SC 697 and Suleman Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Misc. Application
No. 764 of 2022 dated 15th September, 2022, we are inclined to enlarge
the applicant on bail considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
8. Hence, the following Order:-
(i) The sentence imposed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.
458 of 2014 in respect of the applicant-original accused No.1-
Narayan Yajindar Bhosale is suspended during the pendency of the
appeal.
(ii) The applicant-original accused No.1-Narayan Yajindar Bhosale
is enlarged on bail in Sessions Case No. 458 of 2014 arising out of
FIR No. 81/2014 registered with Shirur Police Station, District Pune
on his furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more solvent
local sureties in the like amount.
(iii) After his release from Jail and during the pendency of the
present Appeal, the applicant shall attend Shirur Police Station,
District Pune on every first day of every 3 rd month commencing 1st
July, 2026 between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon.
(iv) The applicants shall remain present at the time of final
hearing.
Amk 3/4
307-ia 664-26.doc
(v) The applicants shall furnish his residential address and contact
details to the trial Court as well as Shirur Police Station.
(vi) In case of two consecutive defaults in attendance, prosecution
is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
9. The Interim Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and
disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 4/4
Checking your session…