Kiran Devidas Salunke v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2828 OF 2025 Sachin Tanaji Mohite ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 360 OF 2025 by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.02.25 11:31:26 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Kiran Devidas Salunke ... Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ... Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Mr.Rohal Hogle a/w Mr.Nagesh Khedkar, for the Applicant in BA No.2828 of 2025.

Mr.Premkumar Mishra (Through V.C.), for the Applicant in BA No.360 of 2025.

Mr.B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr.P.S. Sisode, API, Khed Police Station, Pune Rural. ____________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY 2026 P.C. :

.

Both these Bail Applications are arising out of the same crime, hence, I am deciding it by this common order. 2.

By these Applications, the Applicants are seeking regular bail in Crime No.524 of 2021 registered with Khed-Rajgurunagar Police Station,

Pune and Khed Police Station, Pune, respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) 3.

It is prosecution's case that the Applicants and co-accused murdered the deceased on the ground of old dispute. 4.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicants that the prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. The only alleged eye witness to the incident has died. The co-accused having similar allegations have been released on bail. Hence, the Applicant's are entitled for bail on principle of parity and requested to allow the Application. 4.

It is contention of learned APP that the Applicants had enmity with the deceased, on that ground, they murdered him by assaulting with sharp weapon. The police recorded statement of eye witnesses. In that statement he categorically stated about role of the Applicant's. There is recovery of weapon at the instance of Sachin Mohite. If the Applicants released on bail, they may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the Application.

5.

I have heard all learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.

6.

The co-accused having similar allegations have been released on

bail. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. The alleged eye witness of the incident has died. The Applicants are behind bars for more than four years and five months. There is no progress in trial. It may take time to conclude the trial. The Applicants have no antecedents. 7.

Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Applicant-Sachin Tanaji Mohite be released on bail in Crime No.524 of 2021 registered with KhedRajgurunagar Police Station, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. (i) The Applicant-Kiran Devidas Salunke be released on bail in Crime No.524 of 2021 registered with Khed Police Station, Pune, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

(iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

(v) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.

(vi) Applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)