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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3552

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. DIGE
AJAY MOHAN BIDLAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
BA/4452/2024



2026:BHC-AS:11053 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4452 OF 2024 Ajay Mohan Bidlan … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ____________________________________________________________

NILAM Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH Ms.Sana Raees Khan a/w Mr.Haider Tapia and Ms.Palak Kasliwal, for the SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE D 18 a : t 0 e 6 : : 2 2 0 3 2 + 6. 0 0 5 3 3 .0 0 6 Applicant.

Mr.P.P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.

Ms.Madhumati Shinde, API, Pimpri Police Station.

____________________________________________________________

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 05th MARCH 2026 P.C. :

. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.1215 of 2023 registered with Pimpri Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short).

2. It is prosecution’s case that the Applicant murdered his wife by smothering her on the ground of family dispute.

3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence against the Applicant. The Applicant is behind bars for more than two years. 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 on the day of incident, the Applicant was seen near the house of the deceased. The CDR location of the Applicant shows he was present near the incident spot, it shows his involvement in the crime. It is further submitted that the deceased lodged had complaint against the Applicant. 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 case is based on circumstantial evidence. To prove involvement of the Applicant, evidence is required. The Applicant is behind bars for more than two years. The Applicant has no antecedents. There is no progress in trial. It may take time to conclude the trial. Charge is not framed.

7. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER (i) The Applicant be released on bail in Crime No.1215 of 2023 registered with Pimpri 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.)

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