Rajaram Anant Barve v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:34278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1987 OF 2025 RAJARAM ANANT BARVE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shrimant Mundhe APP for Respondent : Mr. S. N. Morampalle ...

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 04-12-2025 PER COURT:- 1.

The applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.174 of 2025 registered with Sonpeth Police Station, Taluka Sonpeth, District Parbhani, dated 15.03.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 49, 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In connection with said crime, the applicant is arrested on 12.06.2025.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the record made available. 3.

The informant and the accused are relatives having dispute in relation to ancestral properties. Eventually, a mediation was conducted and settlement was arrived. It is, thereafter, allegedly that the accused took the deceased to the farm and killed him. Hence, the informant lodged first information report.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is close relative of the deceased. The applicant is a differently abled person and has no criminal antecedents. There is no specific role attributed to the applicant. The applicant is not seen in the CCTV footage. As such, the applicant is falsely implicated in the crime and prayed him to release on bail.

5.

Per contra, the learned A.P.P. submits that on the previous occasion, the deceased had received the threats at the instance of the accused persons, which establishes the motive on the part of the present applicant/accused No.7 and other accused persons. Thus, there is complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime. Hence, prayed that the applicant may not be released on bail. 6.

Admittedly, there is a dispute between the informant and the applicant. The alleged offence appears to have occurred due to a civil dispute. Perusal of the statement of the mother of the deceased indicates that accused No.1 and 2 had taken the deceased to the field. As such, apparently it is the case of over implication, which entitles the applicant to claim bail. 7.

Considering the fact that the investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars for indefinite period. Thus, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions.

8.

Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

(i) Bail application is allowed.

(ii) Applicant Rajaram Anant Barve be released on bail, on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.50,000/-, with one solvent surety of the like amount, in Crime No.174 of 2025 registered with Sonpeth Police Station, Taluka Sonpeth, District Parbhani, dated 15.03.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 49, 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on the conditions that, (a) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

(b) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the trial Court.

(c) The applicant shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card to the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of applicant and two of the near relatives. (iii) Needless to states that the observations rendered herein are to the extent of this application and the trial court shall not be influenced by the same.

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGE rrd