Shekhar Tatyaram Patole v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3499 OF 2025 Shekhar Tatyaram Patole ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for the State.

_________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:

2026.01.22 17:22:18 +0700 SONALI SATISH KILAJE DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 353 of 2022 registered with Paud Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 398, 201 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").

2.

It is prosecution's case that the applicant had illicit relations with the sister-in-law of the applicant. It is alleged that on the say of the deceased, the applicant was removed from service. Hence, the applicant in conspiracy with the co-accused kidnapped deceased and murdered him. It is alleged that knife used in the crime is recovered at the instance of the applicant.

3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the

applicant is behind bars for almost three years four months, yet trial has not commenced. The knife recovered at the instance of the applicant not show bloodstains on it. The statement of the eye witnesses in respect of the last seen of the deceased with the applicant are self contradictory. It may take time to conclude the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant had motive to kill the deceased as deceased had illicit relations with the sister-in-law of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The knife used in the crime has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or may threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application. 5.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. The applicant has no antecedents. He is behind bars for more than three years and four months. There is no progress in the trial. The co-accused having similar allegations has been released on bail. Considering this fact, the applicant is entitled for bail on the principle of parity and I pass following order.

ORDER

i.

The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 353 of 2022 registered with Paud Police Station, Pune, on

executing P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- on furnishing 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. 6.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

7.

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.

8.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)