Sainath Babulal Sonawane And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2093 of 2025
1. Sainath Babulal Sonawane
1. Vilas @ Lakhan Babulal Sonawane ... Applicant/s
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent/s ____________________________________________________________ Mr. Jayendra Khairnar i/b. Ms. Aleema Bohra i/b. Ms. Gauri Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant/s.
Ms. R. D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
By this application, the applicants are seeking regular bail in Crime No. 253 of 2024 registered with Nandgaon Police Station, District Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
2.
It is prosecution's case that the applicants and co-accused murdered the deceased.
Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date:
2026.01.13 18:19:41 +0530 SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM 3.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence
mentioned in the charge-sheet against the applicants. The applicants are behind bar for more than one and a half years. The applicants have no antecedents. There is no progress in the trial, hence, requested to allow the application.
4.
It is contention of learned APP that the applicants were hired by the co-accused to to kill the deceased. The call record shows that there were several calls made by the applicants and co-accused, indicating their involvement in the crime. The mobile location of the applicants shows that they were present at the spot of the incident at the time of the incident. If the applicants are released on bail, they may threaten the prosecution witnesses, hence, requested to reject the application. 5.
I have heard both learned counsel, perused the charge-sheet and documents produced on record. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. The allegations against the applicants are that they were present at the spot of the incident, and the contract to kill the deceased was given to them by the co-accused. To prove this, evidence is required. The applicants are behind bar for more than one year and six months. There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The applicants be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 253 of 2024
registered with Nandgaon Police Station, District Nashik, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.
(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.
6.
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.
7.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)