Sandip Audumbar Mandave v. State Of Maharashtra

Iresh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3216 OF 2025 Sandip Audumbar Mandave .....Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION ST NO. 17349 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3216 OF 2025 Ashok Narayan Kadam .....Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Sandip Audumbar Mandave .....Applicant IRESH MASHAL Vs.

The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date:

2025.09.16 17:13:48 +0530 Mr. Vikrant Phatate for the applicant Mr. Sachin Bhavar for the intervener Ms. Veera Shinde APP for the State Mr. Sanjay Jagtap, PI, L.C.B. Solapur CORAM :

SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE :

15th SEPTEMBER 2025 P.C.:

1.

By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in 1/4

C.R. No. 207 of 2025 registered with Pandharpur City Police Station, District Solapur for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 49, 61(2) 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

It is the prosecution's case that on suspicion that deceased had illicit relations with wife of accused no. 1 and affair with daughter of accused no. 1. The co-accused and the applicant conspired to kill the deceased and he was assaulted with hard and blunt object and sharp weapons.

3.

It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that applicant is behind bar for more than three months. In the charge-sheet, allegations against the applicant that he conspired to kill the deceased. Except the allegation of conspiracy, there are no allegations against the applicant. The main allegations are against co-accused. Hence, requested to allow the application.

4.

It is the contention of learned APP alongwith learned counsel respondent no. 2 that applicant has antecedents. There are call records between applicant and accused no. 1. applicant threatened the family members of the deceased not to prosecute 2/4

the case. Applicant has active involvement in the crime. if applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

5.

I have heard all the learned counsel, perused F.I.R. and documents produced on record. The allegations against the applicant are of conspiracy. There is no recovery at the instance of the applicant. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. To prove the conspiracy, evidence is required. Applicant is behind bar for more than three months. 6.

Considering these facts, further detention of applicant is not required and I pass following order :

O R D E R

I.

Application is allowed.

II.

Applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R. No. 207 of 2025 registered with Pandharpur City Police Station, District Solapur on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

III.

Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the witnesses or any person 3/4

concerned with the case.

IV.

Applicant shall attend the Trial Court dates, regularly. V.

Applicant shall not contact the first informant and his/her family members.

VI.

Applicant shall not enter in the area where the first informant stays.

7.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

8.

Intervention application also stands disposed of. 9.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. 10.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.] 4/4