High Court
Legal Reasoning
1BA558.2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD913 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 558 OF 2025KISHOR RAMESH BARDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Satej S JadhavAPP for Respondent/State: Mr. A. S. Mantri...CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :19.08.2025P.C. : 1]Heard learned counsel for the applicant and thelearned APP for the respondent-State. 2]The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrestedon 04.11.2024 in connection with Crime No.0530/2024,dated 02.11.2024, registered with Gangapur Police Station,District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Gramin), for theoffences punishable under Sections 103, 238, 61(2)(a),3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3]The applicant herein is accused no.2. It is thecase of the prosecution that on 31.10.2024, accused no.1being the boyfriend of accused no.3 had taken the deceasedon a motorbike and made him consume liquor and,thereafter, eliminated the deceased. The purpose toeliminate the deceased was that accused no.1 and accused 2BA558.2025no.3 were in love relations and faced resistance of marriagefrom the father of accused no.3, who is allegedly a localgoon. Accused no.1 and accused no.3 hatched a plan toeliminate a person identical to accused no.1 and toimplicate the father of accused no.3 in the murder. The ideaapparently was that once the father of accused no.3 isimplicated in the offence and is taken into custody accusednos.1 and 3 would be free to fulfill their desire ofmatrimony. It is stated that father of accused no.3 was adifficult person deal with and, as such, accused nos.1 and 3has made conspiracy to eliminate the boy, who may besimilar in appearance to accused no.1 and show him asaccused no.1 and implicate the father of accused no.3. Inpursuance of the conspiracy by accused no.1 and 3, it isstated that accused no.1 with the aid of accused no.2(applicant), who is the friend of accused no.1, took awaythe deceased, who is the boy of 17 years, on 31.10.2024, at10:00 p.m. on the pretext that they have to go to drive thetractor of sand excavation. The victim was taken by accusedno.1 in presence of the father and mother of the deceased.It is stated that accused no.1 along with the victim and onemore person; in all three persons had visited Hotel Indiana,there two persons entered the hotel for the purpose ofpurchasing the liquor and one person was standing out.Thereafter, accused no.1 with the aid of other personapparently the applicant has eliminated the deceased and,thereafter, by taking petrol from the bike of the present 3BA558.2025applicant poured it on the face of the deceased and burnt it,so as to suppress his identity. The identity card of accusedno.1 was placed in the pocket of the deceased and clotheswere also changed so as to make it appear that accused no.1is killed by some unknown persons. It is the case of theprosecution that accused no.1 took aid of the presentapplicant – accused no.2 to eliminate the deceased and,thereafter, destroyed the evidence. However, in charge-sheet the case of the prosecution is restricted to the extentof destroying the evidence of crime.4]The learned counsel appearing for the applicantsubmits that the hotel owner was subjected to TI parade.However, he has positively identified only accused no.1 andfailed to identify the present applicant - accused no.2. Assuch, he submits that there is no clear evidence of indicatingthat the present applicant has aided accused no.1 or waspresent with accused no.1, while the deceased was taken inthe night on 31.10.2024. There is no evidence that theapplicant was last seen in the company of the deceased andaccused no.1 in the night of 31.10.2024.5]Per contra, the learned APP submits that thereare two important factors implicating the applicant. Shesubmits that accused nos.1 and 2 – present applicant arepresent in the bear bar, where both had taken liquor andconsumed the same. She further submits that the brother of 4BA558.2025accused no.1 has identified the present applicant as one ofthe person present in the Navnirman Hotel and hadconsumed alcohol with accused no.1. She further submitsthat the bike which was used to take the deceased belongsto the present applicant. 6]In response to the submissions made by thelearned APP, the learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat the evidence of CCTV footage that accused no.1 is withthe present applicant prior in point of time i.e. before takingaway the deceased from his house. They were seen in theCCTV footage of Navnirman Hotel and consumed alcohol.There is no evidence thereafter that the applicant is incompany of accused no.1. The deceased was taken from hisresidence by accused no.1 and that the applicant was not incompany of the deceased at any point of time thereafter.There is no evidence that the bike used to take the deceasedbelongs to the applicant. There is no identification that thedeceased was taken on the bike of the present applicant. Hesubmits that, considering the evidence there is no evidenceconnecting the applicant to the crime. He submits that theapplicant is arrested on 04.11.2024 and that bail may begranted to the applicant. He also submits that the case ofthe prosecution as put in charge-sheet at the highest is thatthe applicant has helped accused no.1 in destroying theevidence and not in eliminating the deceased; evenconsidering the case of the prosecution as it is, from the 5BA558.2025evidence, the case against the applicant is only ofdestruction of evidence and, as such, bail may be granted tothe applicant.7]Considering the above submissions of thelearned counsel, prima facie, there is no evidence to showthat the applicant was last seen in company of the deceased.The Hotel owner has only identified accused no.1 and hasfailed to identify the applicant as the person accompanyingthe deceased and accused no.1. So also, there is no evidencethat the applicant’s bike was used for the purpose of takingthe deceased. There is no material to show that there is anyrecovery at the instance of the applicant as regards theevidence connecting the applicant with the crime. So also,case in the charge-sheet against the applicant is only to theextent of destroy the evidence of crime and not to eliminatethe deceased.8]In view of the above, the application is allowedin the following terms : a]The applicant shall be released on bail inconnection with Crime No.0530/2024, dated02.11.2024, registered with Gangapur Police Station,District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Gramin), for theoffences punishable under Sections 103, 238, 61(2)(a), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on 6BA558.2025furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or twosureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of thetrial Court. b]The applicant, upon being released on bail,shall not contact the informant, in any mannerwhatsoever, during the pendency of the trial. c]The applicant shall co-operate with the trialCourt and he shall attend each and every date, unlessexempted by the trial Court.d]The applicant shall not tamper with theevidence of the prosecution and he shall not influencethe informant, witnesses and other persons concernedwith the case. e]The applicant, upon being released on bail,shall place on record of the trial Court the details ofhis Contact Number and residential address withupdates in case of any change. 9]Needless to say, in case of violation of any ofthe aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicantshall be liable to be cancelled.
Decision
7BA558.202510]It is also clarified that the observations made inthis order are limited to the disposal of the present bailapplication. The concerned Court shall proceed further inthe matter without being influenced by the observationsmade hereinabove. 11]The application stands disposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe