Shubhan Usmangani Tamboli v. State Of Maharashtra
Harish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3561 OF 2025 Shubhan Usmangani Tamboli ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra
...Respondent
------- Mr. Pramod Sutar a/w Seema Sutar i/b Atharva R. Bhingardeve Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State. SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date:
2025.12.17 19:32:39 +0530 -------
CORAM
:
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE :
15th DECEMBER, 2025 P.C.
1.
By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.197 of 2025 registered with Tasgaon Police Station, Dist-Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
2.
It is prosecution's case that initially, the complaint was lodged by the brother of the deceased stating that the deceased died due to fall from the staircase. Thereafter, in the investigation, the police revealed that the deceased died due to assault by the applicant. 3.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there is delay of two days in lodging the FIR. The prosecution's case is
based on circumstantial evidence. There is no motive to the applicant to kill the deceased as the deceased was his uncle. Applicant is behind bar more than 7 months. Investigation is completed. Charge-sheet has been filed, hence, requested to allow the application. 4.
It is contention of learned APP that deceased died due to assault by the applicant on his head with chiny pot. There are statements of eye witnesses who, had seen fight between the applicant and deceased. There is direct evidence against the applicant. If the applicant released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.
5.
I have heard both learned counsel, perused the FIR and documents produced on record.
6.
Initially, the complaint was lodged that the deceased died due to fall from the staircase. In investigation, it revealed that the applicant had assaulted on the head of the deceased and he died in the said assault. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. Applicant is behind bar more than 7 months. The applicant is 24 years old and he has no antecedents. It may take time to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, further detention of applicant is not required and I pass following order:
ORDER
I.
The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.197 of 2025 registered with Tasgaon Police Station, Dist-Sangli on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
II.
The applicant shall attend the Court dates regularly. III. 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 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.)