Chandrashekhar Kumar Lalji Saroj v. The State Of Maharashtra

AGK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1553 OF 2025 Chandrashekhar Kumar Lalji Saroj ... Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date:

2025.10.06 18:01:01 +0530 Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh for the applicant.

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Mrs. Kranti T. Hiwrale, APP for the respondent-State.

CORAM

: AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 6, 2025 P.C.:

1.

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The applicant is accused in Crime Register No. 215 of 2023, registered with Panvel Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.

As per the prosecution, on 29 March 2023, the informant was at his residence with his son and daughter. Around midnight, he heard a noise coming from his hen house. When he tried to open the front door, he found that it had been locked from outside by an unknown person. He then went around to the back side of the house to check the hen house but found no one there and nothing stolen. On his daughter's advice, he kept the front door open to see if anyone attempted to steal their hens again.

3.

Around 3.00 a.m., he noticed that his son was missing. While searching for him near Machurle lake, he found red stains on the road. He followed the stains and discovered his son Vinay Patil lying in a pool of blood with injuries on his head. He immediately took his son home and called out for help. His daughter raised an alarm, and the neighbours called the police helpline number 112. Police arrived, shifted the boy to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The body was sent for post-mortem, and accordingly, an FIR was lodged.

4.

The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are: recovery of a mobile phone under Section 27 allegedly belonging to the deceased, alleged motive to commit theft of a hen, call detail record (CDR) location near the scene of offence, and an extra-judicial confession recorded after arrest. It is submitted that the applicant's house is situated only about 600 meters away from the deceased's residence, and therefore, the CDR tower location of both appears the same. It is further contended that the IMEI number of the recovered mobile phone does not match with the deceased's phone. The witnesses' statements show that the deceased was taken about 400 feet away, and there he was last seen by one of the witnesses. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no reliable material directly connecting the applicant to the alleged offence. 5.

On the other hand, the learned APP opposed the bail application. She submitted that the chain of circumstances, as relied upon by the prosecution, sufficiently points towards the

applicant's involvement. She argued that the IMEI number mismatch is due to non-consideration of the last digit and, therefore, the recovered phone can still be linked to the deceased. She further submitted that the CDR location of the applicant at around 3.45 a.m., near the spot of the incident, is an incriminating circumstance. She, therefore, urged that the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail.

6.

I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the material placed on record. The prosecution case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence to show that the applicant caused the death of the deceased. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are yet to be proved by cogent evidence during trial. 7.

The first circumstance relates to recovery of a mobile phone allegedly belonging to the deceased under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, the IMEI number of the said phone does not match with that of the deceased's phone. The explanation offered by the prosecution that the mismatch is due to one digit not being taken into account appears to be an assumption unsupported by any technical certificate or expert opinion. Hence, at this stage, the alleged recovery cannot be treated as a strong incriminating circumstance against the applicant. 8.

The second circumstance pertains to the alleged motive of theft of hens. The prosecution has not produced any material to show that the applicant had any prior quarrel, dispute, or intent to commit theft in the informant's house. The so-called motive

appears weak and insufficient to establish a chain of circumstances pointing to the applicant's guilt.

9.

The next circumstance is the tower location of the applicant's mobile phone. The record shows that the distance between the applicant's residence and the residence of the deceased is about 600 meters. In such proximity, the tower location of both places would naturally be the same. Hence, the CDR location cannot, by itself, be treated as a conclusive circumstance establishing presence of the applicant at the spot of incident.

10.

The fourth circumstance is the alleged extra-judicial confession. It is well settled that such confessions are inherently weak evidence and require careful scrutiny. The alleged confession was recorded after the arrest of the applicant and is not supported by any independent corroboration. In the absence of corroborative material, such a statement cannot be relied upon at this stage to deny bail.

11.

The applicant has been in custody since his arrest. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The continued incarceration of the applicant will serve no further purpose. The possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses appears remote, as most witnesses are residents of the same locality and are known to the police.

12.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the material presently on record does not disclose a prima facie case strong enough to warrant further detention of the applicant. The prosecution evidence is largely circumstantial, and its probative

value will be determined at trial. At this stage, liberty of the applicant can be protected by imposing appropriate conditions. 13.

Hence, following order is passed:

i) The bail application is allowed;

ii) The applicant is directed to be released on regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.215 of 2023 registered with Panvel Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, and 34 of the IPC, upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or more sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence, or directly or indirectly contact, influence, threaten, or intimidate any witness, particularly family members of the deceased.

(b) The applicant shall report to the Panvel Police Station once in a month, specifically on the first Monday of each month, between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, until further orders.

(c) The applicant shall not commit any offence or engage in any criminal activity during the pendency of the trial. (d) The applicant shall, at the time of furnishing surety, provide his current residential address and mobile number to the Investigating Officer as well as the Trial Court, and shall

inform the Court in writing of any change in residence or contact details during the pendency of the case. (e) In case of any breach of the conditions mentioned above, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

14.

The bail application is allowed and disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)