Khushalsing Alias Raviraj Sattyaprakash Naithakur v. The State Of Maharashtra

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2281 OF 2025 Khushalsing Alias Raviraj Sattyaprakash Naithakur ....Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent Mr. S. G. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant (through Legal Aid) Smt. R. R. Tandale, APP for the state.

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 9th JANUARY, 2026.

PER COURT :

1.

The Applicant has filed this Application seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 091/2025 registered with Ahilyanagar Taluka Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2025 at bout 9.15 am an information was received by the informant about one unknown injured person lying unconscious behind Hotel Samarth on Bhoyar Pathar road. He was found strangulated with a handkerchief. Upon examination, the Medical Officer declared him dead.

- 2 - 3.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the First Information Report was lodged against an unknown person. Only on the ground of suspicion the Applicant is incriminated in the offence. There is no intention or motive on the part of the Applicant is coming on record. It is a case of accidental death. Further, it is contended that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and prays for release of the Applicant on bail.

4.

Learned APP vehemently opposed the Application. It is contended that the Applicant is last seen in the company of the deceased. CCTV footage of the hotel shows that the Applicant and the deceased were seen together before the incident and as such prays for rejection of the Application.

5.

Heard learned Counsel for both sides. Perusal of material on record including charge-sheet indicates that initially A.D. case was registered against the unknown person. Prima facie, the record does not reveal any prelude to the alleged incident. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the Application of the Applicant deserves consideration.

- 3 - 6.

The investigation is complete for all intent and purposes, and charge-sheet is already presented, no fruitful propose would be served by further incarcerating the Applicant. Considering the number of witnesses the prosecution is likely to examine, the trial is not likely to conclude within reasonable period. Furthermore, the Applicant has no criminal antecedents. As such, the continued detention of the Applicant is not warranted.

7.

Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

(i) Application is allowed.

(ii) Applicant Khushalsing Raviraj Sattyaprakash Naithakur, be released on bail, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with one or two local solvent sureties, in the like amount, in connection with Crime No.091/2025 registered with Ahilyanagar Taluka Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the following conditions :- (a) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.

- 4 - (b) The Applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the Trial Court and shall not leave the area of jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station till conclusion of the trial.

(c) The Applicant to attend the concerned Police Station on every Monday between 11.00 am and 12.00 am. (d) The Applicant shall submit Aadhar and Pan Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed address and phone numbers of the Applicant and two of the near relatives. (e) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the Applicant, it is open for the prosecution to move this Court seeking cancellation of bail.

(iii) Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to the extent of this Application and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same.

6.

The High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, to pay the fees of the appointed Counsel on behalf of the Applicant, as per rules.

(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) dyb