Nikhil Ramesh Panhalkar v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3522 OF 2025 Nikhil Ramesh Panhalkar .... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent ----- Mr. Shailesh Chavan a/w Mr. Sujit Nikam, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, A.P.P., for the Respondent - State. ----- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 14th NOVEMBER, 2025.

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date:

2025.11.17 14:46:44 +0530 P.C. :

SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM 1.

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent - State.

2.

By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with C.R. No.294 of 2024 registered with Borgaon Police Station, District: Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC").

3.

It is prosecution's case that on 16th June 2024, the deceased Rohidas was found on the road in an injured condition. Hence, the offence was registered against an unknown person. In the Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/4

investigation, it was revealed that the Applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden rod on the ground that the deceased had love affair with the sister of the Original Accused No.9, who is a juvenile offender.

4.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is behind bars for more than one year. There is no progress in the trial, and charge has not been framed. There is no recovery at the instance of the Applicant. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Applicant has no antecedents. It may take time to conclude the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application.

5.

It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant and coaccused assaulted the deceased with wooden rod on the suspicion that the deceased had love affair with the sister of the Original Accused No.9. The CDR produced on record shows that the Applicant and Accused No.9 and other accused were in constant touch on the day of the incident. If the Applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

6.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused F.I.R. and Shantanu S. Dhudum 2/4

documents produced on record.

7.

The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. The allegations against the Applicant are that he assaulted the deceased with wooden rod. There is no recovery at the instance of the Applicant. The Applicant is behind bars for more than one year. There is no progress in the trial. The Applicant has no antecedents. It may take time to conclude the trial. The Applicant had no motive. Considering these facts, I pass following order:

ORDER

i. The application is allowed.

ii. The Applicant be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 294 of 2024 registered with Borgaon Police Station, District: Satara, on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

iii. The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

iv. The Applicant shall remain present before the trial Court on each date unless exempted by the Trial Court.

Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/4

v. The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witness or any person concerned with the case. 8.

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

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.) Shantanu S. Dhudum 4/4