Amol Vasant Mane v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4088 OF 2025 Amol Vasant Mane ....Applicant

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra .....Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Vipul Dushing a/w. Mr. Govind B. Munde and Mr. Ashish N. Saxena, Advocates for the Applicant.

Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:

2026.02.04 10:50:24 +0700 SONALI SATISH KILAJE

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 104 of 2025 registered with Vadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS Act") and Section 4(25) of the Arms Act.

2.

It is prosecution's case that on 06.04.2025, the applicant and co-accused murdered the deceased on the ground of financial dispute. 3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. The applicant is

behind bars for more than 10 months. There is no progress in trial. The applicant has no antecedents. The deceased was private money lender, who used to give money on exorbitant interest. He had many enemies. There are serious antecedents against the deceased and requested to allow the application.

4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant and coaccused were last seen with the deceased. The brother of the deceased had seen them. The applicant had motive to kill the deceased as the deceased was demanding Rs.15 lakhs from the applicant and co-accused. If the applicant released on bail, he may abscond or 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 prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. The brother of the deceased had last seen the applicant on earlier date of the incident at 8.30 p.m. The incident occurred on the intervening night of 05.04.2025 and 06.04.2025. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. The applicant has no antecedents. The applicant is behind bars for more than 10 months. There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

i.

The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 104 of 2025 registered with Vadgaon Nimbalkar 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. 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.)