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) 3553

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. DIGE
VILAS @ BABA BABURAO WAGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
BA/3868/2025



2026:BHC-AS:11052 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3868 OF 2025 Vilas @ Baba Baburao Wagh … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ____________________________________________________________

NILAM Digitally signed by SANTOSH N KA IL M A B M L E SANTOSH Mr.Prashant Hagare i/b Ms.Manisha Devkar, for the Applicant.

KAMBLE D 18 a : t 0 e 6 : : 2 2 0 3 2 + 6. 0 0 5 3 3 .0 0 6 Mr.B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.

____________________________________________________________

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 05th MARCH 2026 P.C. :

. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.238 of 2024 registered with Otur Police Station, Pune Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 396 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short).

2. It is prosecution’s case that Applicant and co-accused murdered the deceased while robbing him.

3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no recovery at the instance of the Applicant. The Applicant is behind bars for more than one year and six months. There is no progress in trial. It may take time to conclude the trial, and requested to allow the Application.

4. It is contention of learned APP that, there is CCTV footage near the incident spot, it shows that Applicant and co-accused were present in the area where the incident happened. The mobile of the deceased is recovered at the instance of the co-accused. The Applicant and co-accused brutally assaulted and murdered the deceased while robbing him. 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. There is no recovery at the instance of the Applicant. The Applicant is behind bars for more than one year and six months. The Applicant has no antecedents.

There is no progress in trial. It may take time to conclude the trial.

7. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER (i) The Applicant be released on bail in Crime No.238 of 2024 registered with Otur 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.)

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