Dhanusingh Chakesingh Marabi v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 377 OF 2026 Dhanusingh Chakesingh Marabi ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.03.09 18:01:07 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE __________________________________________________________ Mr.Someshwar Pawale a/w Mr.Harsh Kashyap and Mr.Aniket Borade, for the Applicant.

Mr.S.M. Mangonkar, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr.Rajesh B. Kartik, PSI, Ranjangaon MIDC Police Station, Pune Rural. __________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 05th MARCH 2026 P.C. :

.

By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.34 of 2024 registered with Ranjangaon MIDC, Police Station, Pune, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short).

2.

It is prosecution's case that on 17th January 2024, the Applicant murdered his wife by throttling her. 3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Initially, police had

recorded death of the deceased as a accidental. The Applicant is behind bars for more than two years and one month. The Applicant has no antecedents. There is no progress in trial, and requested to allow the Application.

4.

It is contention of learned APP that, the Applicant and deceased were staying together. The Applicant had habit of drinking liquor, on that ground there was dispute between the deceased and the Applicant. Out of said dispute, the Applicant throttled the deceased and murdered her. The postmortem report shows cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to throttling. If the Applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the Application.

5.

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.

6.

The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. To prove the role of the Applicant in crime, evidence is required. The Applicant is behind bars for more than two years and one month. The Applicant has no antecedents. There is no progress in trial. It may take time to conclude the trial. Yet charge has not framed.

7.

Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Applicant be released on bail inCrime No.34 of 2024 registered with Ranjangaon MIDC, Police Station, Pune, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

(iv) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.

(v) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)