Sagar Rameshchandra Bhakkad v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3437 OF 2025 Sagar Rameshchandra Bhakkad ....Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Shekhar Jagtap i/b. J. Shekhar Associates, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. B.Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr. Savankumar V. Waghmare, Police Sub-Inspector, Dehuroad Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, present.

_________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.657 of 2023 registered with Dehu Road Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 304(II), 285, 286, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections 5 and 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Section 3A read with 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

2.

It is prosecution's case that the applicant had provided industrial material for preparation of sparkling candles. The blast occurred while preparing candles and 14 people have died. 3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date:

2026.02.24 10:48:57 +0530 applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has no role SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM in the said crime. The applicant was not present at the time of the incident.

The incident happened due to the negligence of the workers or owners. The applicant cannot be held responsible for the same. The applicant is behind bars for more than 27 months. There is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4.

It is contention of learned APP that applicant had no license to supply material for sparkling candles. He provided the material to the owner of the factory and the incident occurred. The applicant is responsible for the incident. If he is released on bail, he may abscond. Hence, requested to reject the application.

5.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. The applicant is behind bars for more than 27 months. There is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. At the time of the incident, the applicant was not present. The allegation against him is of providing material to the said factory. To prove the role of the applicant in the said crime, evidence is required. Considering these facts, I pass the following order

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in in Crime No.657 of 2023 registered with Dehu Road Police Station, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

(iii) The applicant 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.)