Jawed @ Chandu Yalam Kale v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 652 OF 2026 Jawed @ Chandu Yalam Kale ...Applicant

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra

...Respondent

____________________________________________________________ by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date:

2026.05.08 12:03:48 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.Nitin B. Kamble, for the Applicant.

Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr.Akshay Dingale, for Respondent No.2.

____________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 7th MAY 2026 P.C. :

.

By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.257 of 2025 registered with Saswad Police Station, Pune Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 232(1), 103(1), 3(5), 189, 190, 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS' for short), Sections 4(25)(27) of the Arms Act.

2.

It is prosecution's case that on 19th June 2025, the Applicant and co-accused murdered the husband of the First Informant. 3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the name of the Applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. In the Supplementary Statement, name of the Applicant is mentioned. The Applicant is behind bars

for more than eight months. The Applicant has no antecedents. There is no progress in trial, and requested to allow the Application. 4.

It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the Applicant and co-accused murdered the husband of the First Informant. There is direct evidence against him. The eye witnesses have stated about role of the Applicant. If the Applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten First Informant and prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the Application.

5.

The First Informant is present in the Court, she has submitted that she has no objection for granting bail and said that she gave the name of the Applicant in FIR due to misunderstanding.

6.

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

7.

The Applicant is behind bars for more than eight months. His name was not mentioned in the FIR, he has no antecedents. He is behind bar for eight months, it is contention of the First Informant that name of the Applicant was taken due to misunderstanding. It may take time to conclude the trial, and I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Applicant be released on bail in Crime No.257 of 2025 registered with Saswad Police Station, Pune Rural, 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.)