Rajendra Chabu Apsunde v. The State Of Maharashtra
16-BA-898-2025__CR_.doc Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 898 OF 2025 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Rajendra Chabu Apsunde ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________ by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.05.04 19:28:15 +0530 Mr. Shridhar Patil, Advocate for Applicant (Through VC). Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 27th APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State.
2.
By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 229/2023 registered with Dindori Police Station, Nashik for the offences punishable under sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3.
It is prosecution's case that applicant murdered his own minor son on the suspicion that the said son does not belong to him. 4.
It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that applicant is behind bars for more than 35 months, yet trial is not concluded. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. At the time of incident applicant was not present. The letter given by the superior of the applicant shows that applicant was present on his duty at the time of incident and requested to allow the application. 5.
It is contention of learned APP that trial is almost over. The evidence of Investigating Officer is only remained. The complaint is filed by the wife of the applicant stating that he was suspecting on her character
16-BA-898-2025__CR_.doc Tikam and he was believing that the said son was not belonging to him. The date of incident, Applicant took the minor son and when first informant called him about whereabouts of the son, but applicant did not reply to her call and dead body of her son was found. It shows involvement of the applicant in the crime and requested to reject the application. 6.
I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.
7.
In first information report it is specifically mentioned that applicant was suspecting on character of his wife i.e. first informant and he was suspecting that the deceased son does not belong to him. On the day of incident, applicant took away the deceased son with him and thereafter his dead body was found. The chain of incident shows involvement of the applicant. Moreover, the trial is at fag end. The evidence of the investigating officer is remained . It is settled law that in serious cases like murder, if trial is in progress, bail cannot be granted. Hence, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Bail Application is rejected.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)