SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4550

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
AMIT BORKAR, J
Arvind @ Aryan Avinash Nalawade – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Bail Application No.988 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.I. Kantharia
For the Respondents: Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP

The court ruled that the accused's lack of criminal history and contradictions in witness statements justified granting bail pending trial.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Applicant seeks regular bail for multiple offences following his arrest based on FIR and subsequent supplementary statement. The initial FIR attributes the assault to another co-accused and the supplementary statement raises doubts about its veracity due to delay. The applicant has no prior criminal history and has been in custody since arrest. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must establish prima facie evidence linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt before denying bail, especially when significant time has elapsed since the incident and contradictions arise in witness statements. (Paras 6-8)

Table of Content
1. bail granted with conditions. (Para 10)

2025.06.30 17:44:20 +0530 CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JUNE 30, 2025 P.C.:

1. This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.189 of 2023 registered with Vanrai Police Station, Mumbai. The applicant has been arrested in connection with offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the contents of the First Information Report dated 27 May 2023, is that the co-accused Aditya assaulted the deceased using a knife. The FIR was lodged soon after the incident and it clearly attributes the fatal assault to the said co-accused.

3. It is only on 30 May 2023—three days after the FIR—that a supplementary statement of the informant came to be recorded. In this supplementary statement, the informant stated that the present applicant had also assaulted the deceased using a cement sheet. Based on this additional statement, the applicant was arrested on 31 May 2023.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the role of the present applicant has not been disclosed in the initial FIR, which was registered within two hours of the incident. It is argued that the core narrative of the incident, as originally narrated by the informant herself, made no reference to the present applicant. The subsequent allegation made three days later, that too by way of a supplementary statement, raises serious doubts about the veracity and spontaneity of the allegation. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 31 May 2023.

5. On the other hand, learned APP submits that the role of the present applicant, as disclosed in the supplementary statement of the informant, is corroborated by the statement of one independent witness—Deepak Pawar—who has also attributed the act of assault with a cement sheet to the applicant. The prosecution, therefore, opposes the bail application on the ground that there is material to prima facie implicate the applicant in the offence of murder.

6. I have perused the charge-sheet as well as the statements of the informant and the witness Deepak Pawar. The initial FIR, which forms the basis of the prosecution case, was lodged promptly and sets out the events in a detailed and chronological manner. The entire blame in the FIR is laid on co-accused Aditya for assaulting the deceased with a knife, which allegedly caused the fatal injuries. The supplementary statement attributing additional role to the applicant came to be recorded after a gap of three days and appears to be an improvement to the original version. While the statement of Deepak Pawar lends some support to the supplementary version, the delay and contradiction in the versions creates room for doubt.

7. The applicant is in custody since 31 May 2023. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant has no past criminal record. There is no allegation that the applicant may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. The trial is likely to take considerable time.

8. In view of the above circumstances, particularly the improved version in the supplementary statement, absence of any antecedents, and the fact that the trial is yet to commence, I am of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant.

9. Hence, following order:

i) The bail application is allowed;

ii) The applicant is directed to be released on regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.189 of 2023 registered with Vanrai Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC, upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

a) The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top