Bhagwan Balu Changale vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

Bhagwan Balu Changale vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant (Accused No. 8), in custody for about 4.5 years with charge framed but trial not commenced, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in the MCOC murder-conspiracy case (Special MCOC Case No. 237 of 2021). +1 more

Court's answer

Two eye witnesses, Tukaram Mandlik and Madhukar Sonawane, saw the Applicant giving signal/sign to the assailants in the crime on the date of the incident (17/2/2021).

Ratio / Principle

The blood stained watch of the deceased Ramesh was recovered at the instance of the Applicant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and was identified as the deceased's watch with reference to the Olakh Parade Panchanama (page 425 of the paper book).

Key takeaways

The confessional statements of co-accused Mukta and Jagdish Mandlik indicate a connection between the Applicant and Accused No. 1, who is the gang leader; a cheque of Rs. 5 Lakhs drawn in the Applicant's name was recovered from the premises of Accused No. 1, showing the connect between them.ratio¶38
Prima facie a case of hatching a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased is established against the Applicant.ratio¶48
The mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot by itself outweigh the gravity of the offence and the incriminating material gathered against the Applicant during investigation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Bail Application No. 5137 of 2024, decided 20-08-2025 by Ashwin D. Bhobe, J. — Bhagwan Balu Changale, Accused No. 8 of the 19 charge-sheeted accused, sought regular bail under S.483 BNSS in Special MCOC Case No. 237 of 2021 (Crime No. 37 of 2021, Gangapur PS, Dist. Nashik), pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, for offences under Ss.302, 120B, 115, 201, 109, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with S.34 IPC, Ss.4/25 Indian Arms Act and Ss.3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) MCOC Act, arising out of the murder of Ramesh Mandlik on 17.02.2021, allegedly over a property-related dispute; the State asserted he had taken a contract to eliminate the deceased. The Applicant was arrested on 18.02.2021 (about 4.5 years' custody); charge was framed on 27.07.2022 but the trial had not commenced; his first bail application was withdrawn on 06.01.2023 and a later application (Exh.346) was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nashik on 29.08.2024; all co-accused except Accused Nos. 6 and 10 had been released. The Court found that two eye witnesses, Tukaram Mandlik and Madhukar Sonawane, saw the Applicant give the signal/sign to the assailants on the incident date; that the blood-stained watch of the deceased was recovered at the Applicant's instance under S.27 Indian Evidence Act and identified as the deceased's watch with reference to the Olakh Parade Panchanama (page 425 of the paper book); and that a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn in the Applicant's name was recovered from the premises of Accused No.1, the gang leader, with confessional statements under S.18 MCOC of co-accused Jagdish Mandlik and Mukta Motkari indicating the Applicant's connection with Accused No.1. Relying on the Division Bench's wide construction of 'member' under S.2(1)(d) MCOC in Sachin Bansilal Ghaiwal v. State of Maharashtra (2014 Cr. L.J. 217, paras 38-39), and citing Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan ((2004) 7 SCC 528), the Court held that prima facie a case of hatching a conspiracy to murder was established against the Applicant; that the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot by itself outweigh the gravity of the offence and the incriminating material; and that, considering the gravity of the offence together with the apprehension of tampering with evidence and the bar under S.21(4) MCOC, the Applicant was not entitled to bail. Application dismissed.