Kiran Akaram Gadade v. The State Of Maharashtra
Harish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3353 OF 2025 Kiran Akaram Gadade ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date:
2025.10.10 20:02:33 +0530 ------- Mr. Shrikant T. Jadhav a/w Mr. Pratik P. Jadhav & Murlidhar P. Kharat for the Applicant.
Dr. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent-State. ------- CORAM :
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE :
8th OCTOBER, 2025 P.C.:
1.
By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in crime No.119 of 2025 registered with Kavathemahankal Police Station, District-Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. 2.
It is prosecution's case that dead body of deceased was found locked in her house. Due to foul smell, the neighbors informed the police. The police broke open the lock of the door of the house of deceased and they found body of deceased having injuries on her body. It is alleged that the applicant had 1/4
illicit relations with the deceased and the deceased was demanding money to the applicant, hence, he murdered her by strangulation.
3.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The applicant is 22 years old. He is behind bar more than 6 months. Investigation is completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. The deceased was doing prostitution business. The applicant has no antecedents. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4.
It is contention of learned APP that the applicant had illicit relations with the deceased. The key of the lock of the house of deceased is recovered at the instance of the applicant. Cloth Button of the applicant is recovered from the spot of incident. There was quarrel between the applicant and deceased. The CCTV footage is sent for FSL examination. If the applicant released on bail, he may abscond. Hence, requested to reject the application.
5.
I have heard both learned counsel, perused the FIR and documents produced on record.
6.
The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial 2/4
evidence. The applicant is behind bar more than 6 months. Investigation is completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. Though it is the case of prosecution that the key of the lock of the house of deceased has been recovered at the instance of the applicant, to prove it, evidence is required. The applicant has no antecedents. Considering these facts, the further detention of applicant is not required and I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Application is allowed.
(ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail in crime No. 119 of 2025 registered with Kavathemahankal Police Station, District-Sangli, on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(iii) The applicant shall attend the Court dates regularly.
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.
7.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is 3/4
accordingly disposed off.
8.
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. 9.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.] 4/4