Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 91
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
Mangesh, s/o. Chandrakant Ransing – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Investigating Officer – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2025
Decided On : 08-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.483
INDIAN PENAL CODE : Art.304(b), Art.498(a), S.203, S.302, S.307
MUMBAI POLICE ACT : S.37(1)(3)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.439
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Accused performed inter-caste marriage; allegedly entered wife's parental home, poured petrol on her, set fire leading to 69% burns and death; initial version blamed in-laws, dying declaration implicated accused; bought petrol captured on CCTV; arrested after charge-sheet; trial delayed despite assurances.
Findings of Court:
Appeal dismissed; Special Judge directed to conclude trial within 6 months using warrants for witnesses; police to assist; no adjournments without substantial cause.
Issues: Whether prolonged incarceration over 6 years entitles bail despite serious offences and partial trial progress; balance of speedy trial right against prosecution readiness and tampering risks.
Ratio Decidendi: Supreme Court law on bail for speedy trial violations applies where no trial progress; inapplicable here as witnesses examined - incarceration alone insufficient against strong evidence (dying declaration, CCTV, witnesses) and risks of witness deterrence, influence, absconding in grave case. Result : Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant : Adv. Shubham D. Jayabhar, Appointed through the Legal Aid.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dande, the learned APP , Ms. Harsha Lomte, Adv. Appointed through the Legal Aid., the mother of victim
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused charged with murdering sc wife by burning. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. prolonged detention violates article 21 speedy trial right. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. strong evidence and tampering risks justify bail denial. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. trial severely delayed with minimal witness examination. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. precedents favor bail for long pre-trial incarceration. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. bail denied; precedents inapplicable as trial progressing. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
1. By the present Appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant/original accused takes exception to the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 259 of 2019, thereby rejected Exh.32 an application for bail under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 395 of 2019 registered with Parner Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST Act').
2. It is the case of prosecution that, on 02.05.2019, Bundgarden Police Station received information from Dr. Vanita, the CEO of Sasoon Hospital, Pune about admission of victim-Smt. Rukhmini w/o Mangesh Ransingh and Appellant in Ward No. 25 with burn injuries under MLC No. 10030/2019. The present appellant gave story to said Medical Officer about sustaining self burn injuries by his wife on 01.05.2019 at her parental house at village Nigoj Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. After receipt of said information, the Police Sub-Inspector Mr. Jayant Patil visited Ward No. 25 and recorded statement of the present appellant as well as victim on 02.05.2019. The appellant gave story that, prior to six month of the incident he performed inter-caste marriage with Rukhmini Bai Rama Bhartiya and before two days of the incident his mother-in-law had called his wife at her parental house. On next day, he visited at his in-laws house but he was not permitted to meet his wife. Thereafter, again on 01.05.2019, about 1.30 p.m., he visited at his in-laws house at Nighoj with some snacks for his wife and brother-in-law but the victim’s father (i) Rama Ramphal Bhartiya, (ii) Shri Dillu Pandit, the victim’s maternal uncle and other two persons poured petrol on her in person as well as on person of victim and set them on fire. On the basis of said information, Crime No. 395/2019 was registered for the offence u/s 307 of IPC and Sec. 37 (1)(3) of the Mumbai Police Act against Rama Ramfal Bharitya, Mama Dillu Pandit and two other unknown persons.
3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and seized articles. In the investigation it was revealed that, the present appellant/accused allegedly poured petrol on the person of his wife Rukhmini and set her on fire after he visited the parental house of deceased. Dying declaration of the victim-Rukhmini was recorded on 01.05.2019, wherein, she made a statement that her husband i.e. appellant had entered in the house from the backside door and poured petrol from plastic bottle on her person and set her on fire. Due to which, she and her husband got burnt. On 05.05.2019, at about 21.30 hours, the victim died during hospitalization, therefore, offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC was added. It was further revealed that, the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste, hence, offences under Sections 3(1) (r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST Act') were added.
4. After investigation was over, on 04.09.2019, the Investigation Officer filed charge-sheet against the Appellant/ Accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 203 of the Indian Penal
