Allowed¶34

Rajendra Yallappa Handifod v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Jan 2025BA/3205/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regular bail; Sections 302, 201 IPC; C.R. No. 258 of 2023; Miraj City Police Station; father accused of murdering son; beheading; body parts in gunny bag; habitual drunkard deceased; circumstantial evidence; two years incarceration; no progress in trial; strong prima facie case; family members as witnesses; threat to witnesses; P.R. Bond Rs. 20,000; sureties; bail conditions; observations confined to bail purpose; High Court of Bombay Circuit Bench Kolhapur; Shivkumar Dige J.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail in C.R. No. 258 of 2023 (Miraj City Police Station) on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or influence/contact witnesses, and shall attend Trial Court dates regularly. ¶34

Rajendra Yallappa Handifod vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (father of the deceased), in custody for over two years in C.R. No. 258 of 2023 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on a prosecution case resting on circumstantial evidence with no progress in the trial, should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶15

Court's answer

Having regard to the applicant's incarceration for more than two years, the fact that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, and the absence of progress in the trial, further detention of the applicant is not required.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be enlarged on bail in C.R. No. 258 of 2023 registered with Miraj City Police Station on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶31

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to conditions: the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact witnesses or any person concerned with the case, and shall attend the Trial Court dates regularly.ratio¶32
The observations in the order were made only for the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by those observations.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (Shivkumar Dige, J.), Criminal Bail Application No. 3205 of 2024, decided 18th August 2025: Regular bail granted to Rajendra Yallappa Hadifod, accused in C.R. No. 258 of 2023 of Miraj City Police Station for offences under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that he murdered his son — the deceased, described as a habitual drunkard who harassed his family — and concealed the head and kept other body parts in a gunny bag. Despite the learned APP's contention that there was a strong prima facie case, that the applicant had beheaded his son, and that all prosecution witnesses being family members could be threatened, the Court found that the applicant had been in custody for more than two years, the prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, and the trial showed no progress; further detention was therefore held unnecessary. The applicant was directed to be released on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, on conditions of non-tampering with evidence and non-influence/contact with witnesses, and regular attendance at trial dates. Observations were expressly confined to the purpose of granting bail, leaving the Trial Court to decide the case uninfluenced.

Iresh

IRESH MASHAL

28.3205.24 ba.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3205 OF 2024

¶8

Rajendra Yallappa Hadifod .....Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State of Maharashtra .....Respondent

¶11

Mr. Chirag R. Sonecha, Ms. Prajakta M. Shah for the applicant Ms. Veera Shinde APP for the State Mr. Sagar Shrikant Dhond, PC, Miraj City Police Station

¶12

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶13

DATE : 18^th AUGUST 2025

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in

¶16

Digitally signed byIRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.08.19 17:33:59 +0530

¶17

C.R. No. 258 of 2023 registered with Miraj City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

It is the prosecution’s case that deceased was habitual drunkard and he was harassing his family members. The applicant is father of the deceased. It is alleged that the applicant and his family members were fed up with the

¶19

1/4

¶20

28.3205.24 ba.docx

¶21

activities of the deceased. On that ground, the applicant killed his son i.e. deceased and put his body parts in one Gunny bag.

¶22

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind the bar for more than two years, yet there is no progress in the trial. The prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence. He submits that if the applicant is released on bail, there is no threat to the society nor he will abscond. Hence, he requested to allow the application.

¶23

It is the contention of learned APP that the applicant has murdered his son. The applicant had beheaded the head of his son and it was hidden and other body parts were kept in one Gunny bag. He himself had informed the first informant about the said act. Learned APP further submits that there is strong prima facie case against the applicant. All the prosecution witnesses are family members of the applicant and if the applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

¶24

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the F.I.R.

¶25

and documents produced on record. The applicant is behind

¶26

2/4

¶27

28.3205.24 ba.docx

¶28

bar for more than two years. The applicant is father of the deceased. It is alleged that the applicant murdered him due to behaviour of the deceased. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no progress in the trial.

¶29

Considering these facts, further detention of applicant is not required and I pass following order :

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

I. The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R. No. 258 of 2023 registered with Miraj City Police Station on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶32

II. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶33

III. The applicant shall attend the Trial Court dates, regularly.

¶34

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

¶35

It is made clear that the above observations are made only

¶36

3/4

¶37

28.3205.24 ba.docx

¶38

for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶39

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶40

order.

¶41

[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.]

¶42

4/4

Rajendra Yallappa Handifod v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Yallappa Handifod v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandrakant Khandu Pednekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Vamanrao Pol and Ors. vs Jagdish Mrugendra Chadchankar and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai Thr.General Manager vs Nisar Ahmed Sarang

Sandip Shankar More vs the State of Maharashtra

Sushma Suresh Parab vs State Of Maharashtra

Ramesh Sundar Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra