Anilkumar Suryalal v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3837 OF 2025 Anilkumar Suryalal ...
Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
...
Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Ms. Manisha Devkar a/w. Ms. Anjali Kondvilkar, Advocates for the Applicant.
Smt. R. D. Humane, APP for the State.
PSI - K.H.Wagaj, Yavat Police Station, Pune, present. _________________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:
2026.01.29 12:15:27 +0700 SONALI SATISH KILAJE
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 817 of 2024 registered with Yavat Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 212 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS Act") 2.
It is prosecution's case that the deceased is the brother-in-law of the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant murdered the Deceased as he often used to abuse the applicant and his brother Krupashankar. 3.
It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than one year and five months. Initially, accidental death was registered in respect of the death of the deceased, but
thereafter, police arrested the applicant in connection with the death of the deceased. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. It may take time to conclude the trial and requested to allow the application. 4.
It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has shown the death of the deceased as accidental death, but in Investigation it revealed that the applicant strangulated the deceased and murdered him. The postmortem report supports the prosecution's case. Learned APP further submitted that there were often quarrels between applicant and deceased. There are eye witnesses who had seen the quarrel between the applicant and the deceased. If the applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the application. 5.
I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. Initially, accidental death was registered. The applicant is behind bars for one years and five months. There is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
i.
The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 817 of 2024 registered with Yavat Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 15,000/- 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. All pending applications, if any, 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.)