Yuvraj Prabhakar Khasdar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:37267 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1467 OF 2025 YUVRAJ PRABHAKAR KHASDAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Sangita A. Sambre (Daud) (appointed) APP for Respondents-State : Mr. V.M. Chate ...

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

Date : 5th December, 2025 ORDER :- The applicant has approached this Court seeking regular bail in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 172 of 2024 dated 15.12.2024 registered with Mahur Police Station, Dist. Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.12.2024 at about 3.00 am, the applicant committed murder of his wife by pouring petrol and then setting her on fire at his house. It is alleged in the complaint that accused was suspecting the character of the deceased and, therefore, he committed the above offence. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the offence. There is no dying

-2declaration of the deceased and no incriminating material has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence only. The applicant is in jail since 22.12.2024. Investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed. Further incarceration of the applicant is not justified. Hence, considering the prolonged incarceration of the applicant on account delayed trial, prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

4.

Learned APP has vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant is involved in a heinous offence of committing murder of the his own wife and then setting her ablaze. The statement of the witnesses indicate that the applicant had suspicion on the character of the deceased. Therefore, he had motive to commit the alleged offence. The learned APP has also expressed an apprehension that, if released on bail, the applicant may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

5.

Having heard the submissions from both sides and upon perusal of the documents on record including the chargesheet, it prima facie, establishes the fact that the applicant used to quarrel and beat the victim, suspecting her character. Apart from the same, the statement of the daughter of the deceased indicates that during the

-3alleged incident, the applicant was inside the room when the deceased was put on fire. The statement further indicates that the daughter requested the applicant to open the door. However, the applicant, in the guise of putting off the fire, delayed to open the door. It is only when the neighbours gathered and the victim sustained substantial burn injuries, the applicant opened the door. As such, the circumstance aforestated, prima facie, establishes the complicity of the applicant in the crime.

6.

Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for grant of bail. 7.

Hence, the application is rejected.

8.

Since this application is filed through High Court Legal Service Sub-Committee at Aurangabad, the fees of Ms. Sangita Sambre, learned counsel for the applicant, be quantified and paid to her, in accordance with law.

(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) arp/-