Dileshwarprasad Santram Varma v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Karanja Ghatge Dist Wardha And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84/2026 (Dileshwarprasad S/o Santram Varma Vs. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Karanja (Ghatge), Distt. Wardha and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Mahesh Rai, Advocate for the Appellant.

Ms. S.S. Dhote, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. Ms. Varsha Warade, Advocate (appointed) for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

DATED: 9.4.2026.

This is an Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SCST Act") as the Regular Bail Application filed by the Appellant in Special Case No.69/2025 arising out of Crime No.411/2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "B.N.S.") and for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SCST Act") came to be rejected by order dated 13.11.2025. 2.

The Informant's daughter aged 26 years did not return home after she left on 08.05.2025. The Missing Report was lodged with Karanja Ghatge Police Station. On 23.05.2025 the dead body of the Informant's daughter was found at one secluded place. The Informant suspected that, the Appellant killed her daughter as he was having love affair with the deceased. The Appellant came to be arrested and

after investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. The Appellant applied for regular bail which came to be rejected. 3.

Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned appointed Advocate for the Respondent No.2. With their assistance perused the papers. 4.

The crime is registered against the Appellant on the Report lodged by the mother of the deceased on suspicion. Though the mobile phone came to be seized from the spot pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the Appellant there is no material to show that, the said mobile phone belonged to the deceased. One witness namely Sanjay Namdevrao Dhavale claims to have seen the deceased lastly with the Appellant on 09.05.2025, however, his statement is recorded on 23.06.2025 though he came to know about missing of the Informant's daughter on 10.05.2025. Except this there is no material to link the Appellant with the incident. The Appellant is arrested on 24.05.2025. Hence, the Appellant can be enlarged on bail by imposing appropriate conditions. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

i.

The Appeal is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Special Case No.69/2025 is quashed and set aside.

iii) The Appellant be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. iv) The Appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution's evidence in any manner.

v) The Appellant shall co-operate with the trial Court for early disposal of the matter.

vi) The fees of the learned appointed Advocate for the Respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The same shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority.

vii) Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)

Tambaskar.

Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/04/2026 19:05:30