High Court
Legal Reasoning
459.25apeal(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 927 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2025Ajinkya @ Bandry Shriniwas Wasare,Age: 29 years, Occ. Labour,R/o. Coil Nagar, Latur,Tq. & Dist. Latur….APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State Of Maharashtra,Through Police Station Officer,Shivaji Nagar Police Station,Dist. Latur2.Limbaraj Maroti Ransule,Age: 35 years, Occu: Labour,R/o. Khopegaon, Tq. & Dist. Latur ….RESPONDENTS…..Mr Nilesh N. Bhagwat, Advocate for AppellantMr D. B. Bhange, APP for Respondent No.1/StateMs Priyanka Jadhav, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 10 OCTOBER 2025ORDER :1.By this criminal appeal, the appellant prays for quashingand setting aside the order dated 23/04/2025, passed below Exhibit 27in Special Case No.124/2024 by the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Latur, whereby his application for grant of regular bail in 459.25apeal(2) connection with C.R. No.332/2024 registered on 11/08/2024 withShivaji Police Station, Latur, Dist. Latur for offences punishable underSections 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and underSection 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was rejected. He also prays forreleasing him on regular bail in the said crime.2.The First Information Report filed on 11/08/2024 bycomplainant/respondent No.2 Limbaraj Maroti Ransule, stating thereinthat his younger brother, namely, Sukhdeo Maroti Ransule, aged about27 years, was staying in Coil Nagar, Latur and was working in MiniMarket. On 11/08/2024, at about 3:30 a.m., his cousin brother AvinashShrimant Ransule called him and informed him that Sukhdeo is lyingon the road in injured condition. Accordingly, he reached at Latur at7:00 a.m. at Government Hospital, Latur. Doctors of the GovernmentHospital informed him that Sukhdeo is already expired. On the basisof information received from the nearby public, the present applicant isalleged to have murdered Sukhdeo by using stone. Accordingly,complainant lodged the report against the appellant.3.On the basis of aforesaid report, the investigation set intomotion. The Investigating Officer recorded spot panchnama on
Legal Reasoning
459.25apeal(3) 11/08/2024 and seized stone weighing about 20 kgms. andincriminating material from the spot. Clothes of the accused also cameto be seized. The spot is located on cement road at Coil Nagar, Laturinfront of Ajinkyatara Boys Hostel. Body of the deceased was referredfor post mortem. As per the post mortem report, 9 injuries were on thebody of the deceased and the death was due to head injury. Theappellant/accused came to be arrested on the same day i.e. on11/08/2024. The Investigating Officer also recorded statements ofvarious witnesses. After investigation is complete, the InvestigatingOfficer accordingly filed charge-sheet4.Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that since theincident is of 2024 and till date, no progress took place in trial, theappellant has approached this Court with a request to release him onregular bail. He further submits that there is no direct evidence againstthe appellant/accused in this crime and the evidence available is in theform of hearsay evidence. There is no strong material availableagainst accused so as to held him guilty for this offence. There are noeye witnesses of the incident. He, therefore, submits that the appellantis not guilty of this crime and he is falsely implicated in this crime.He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal by granting of regular bailto the appellant. 459.25apeal(4) 5.Per contra, learned APP for respondent No.1/State as wellas learned Advocate for respondent No.2/ informant strongly opposedthe appeal. They both supports the order of the learned SessionsCourt. Learned APP submits that the appellant is involved in a seriouscrime of murder. Stone of 20 kgms. was seized from the spot. Hefurther submits that if the appellant is released on bail, he will flee andwill not be available for trial. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of theappeal.6.Learned appointed Advocate for respondent No.2 alsosupports the submissions of the learned APP and submits that due toalleged assault by the appellant, the deceased has lost his life. Shefurther submits that there is sufficient material which showsinvolvement of the appellant in the alleged crime. As such, she alsoprays for dismissal of the present appeal.7.Heard learned Advocate for the appellant, learned APP forrespondent No.1/State and learned Advocate (appointed) forrespondent No.2. With their assistance, I have perused the materialavailable on record. Prima facie, there appears no direct evidence onrecord of assault on the deceased by the appellant. The investigation isover. There are no direct eye witnesses in this crime. 459.25apeal(5) 8.Though learned APP for the respondent/State and learnedAdvocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposed grant of bail, however,it appears that there is no possibility that trial shall be concluded in fewmonths. The accused is to be considered innocent unless and until heis proved guilty by the Court of law. Prima facie there is no strongevidence available on record warranting conviction of the appellant.There is no progress in the trial. On this sole ground of delay in trial,the instant appeal for grant of regular bail needs to be allowed.However, apprehension of the learned APP and learned counsel forrespondent No.2 can be taken into consideration while releasing theappellant on bail by putting strict conditions on the appellant. Since theappellant is in jail 2024 and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trialin near future, the appellant deserves to be granted bail. Hence, I passthe following order :- ORDER(I)The present criminal appeal is allowed.(II)The order dated 23/04/2025, passed below Exhibit 27 in SpecialCase No.124/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur,Dist. Latur, is hereby quashed and set aside. 459.25apeal(6) (III)Appellant Ajinkya @ Bandry Shriniwas Wasare shall be releasedon bail in connection with C.R. No.332/2024, registered on 11/08/2024with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur, Dist. Latur for offencespunishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023and under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing PR bond ofRs.25,000/- with one solvent surety/security in the like amount.(IV)Appellant shall not influence or contact with any witnesses orinformant and not to interfere with the evidence of the prosecution.(V)Appellant shall cooperate with the trial Court and he shall attendeach and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court. (VI)Appellant shall place on record of the trial Court the details ofhis contract number and residential address with updates in case of anychange. (VII)Appellant shall attend the concerned police station and report toPolice Station Officer or his subordinate officer in every week i.e. onevery Monday at 11:00 a.m. till the conclusion of trial.(VIII)Appellant shall not commit any crime during his bail period. 459.25apeal(7) 9.It is made clear that, in case of violation of any of theaforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the appellant shall be liable tobe cancelled. 10.Since learned Advocate for respondent No.2 is appointedthrough High Court Legal Aid Services, Sub Committee, Aurangabad,her fees shall be calculated and paid to him as per rules.11.It is also clarified that the observations made in this orderare prima facie in nature for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]sjk