Sagar Sudhakar Bagul v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.78 OF 2026 Sagar Sudhakar Bagul ....Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Aniket Nikam along with Ms. Abhilasha Pawar and Mr. Sumit Pawar, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. M. G.Patil, APP for Respondent-State.

_________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 275 of 2025 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik City, Nashik for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 140, 118(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

2.

It is prosecution's case that on 29th September 2025, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant and his friends with an iron rod and fired at them with intention to kill them. SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM 3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.02.09 18:38:20 +0530 panchnama of CCTV footage produced on record shows that the applicant

was not present at the incident spot. The statement of the eyewitness shows that the applicant assaulted the first informant with fist and kick blows. The name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, his name was mentioned in the supplementary statement. The applicant has no antecedents. The applicant is behind bars for more than four months and requested to allow the application.

4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant had common intention to kill the first informant and his friends. The co-accused fired at them, but the gun shot missed and hit the car. The applicant was present at the incident spot. There are statements of the eyewitnesses. If the applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses, and hence requested to reject the application. 5.

I have heard both learned counsel and perused the documents produced on record. In the FIR, the name of the applicant is not mentioned. The CCTV footage panchnama produced on record shows that the applicant was not seen in the said CCTV footage. The statement of the eyewitness shows that the applicant assaulted the first informant with fist and kick blows. The applicant has no antecedents. He is behind bars for more than four months. Considering these facts, I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 275 of 2025

registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik City, Nashik, 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.)