Lahu @ Besan Mogha Supe vs State of Maharashtra

Mr. Raviraj Paramane, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent No.1-State. HC-Sagar Bhimrao Shinde, Junnar Police Station, present.

¶10

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 20^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 262 of 2024 registered with Junnar Police Station, Pune Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 64, 115 and 118 of the the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶13

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM

¶14

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.01.22 19:18:38 +0530

¶15

It is prosecution’s case that on 3^rd August 2024 around 4.00 p.m., the applicant murdered the deceased on the ground that she had illicit relationship with other person. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year five months. The applicant has no antecedents. There is no progress in the trial and requested to allow the application.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

40-BA-1650-2025 (CR).doc

¶18

Shubhada S Kadam

¶19

It is contention of learned APP that applicant was last seen near the house of the deceased. The confession statement of the applicant has been recorded. In the statement, he admits about his guilt. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

¶20

I have heard both learned counsel and perused the charge-sheet and documents produced on record. The prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence. To prove the case against the applicant, chain of incidents is required to be proved. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year five months. The evidential value of the confession statement cannot be considered at the time of deciding bail application. The applicant has no antecedents. Considering these facts, I pass the following order:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 262 of 2024 registered with Junnar Police Station, Pune Rural, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

40-BA-1650-2025 (CR).doc

¶26

Shubhada S Kadam

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to

¶28

influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶29

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

¶30

It is made clear that the above observations are made only 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.

¶31

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Lahu @ Besan Mogha Supe v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lahu @ Besan Mogha Supe 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

Mahadev Suresh Kale vs the State of Maharashtra

Shahrukh Akhatar Ansari vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sumit Nagesh Langde vs State of Maharashtra

Anagha Swanpnil Mahale and Anr. vs Swapnil Sanjeev Mahale

Deepak Bhagwan Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra

Paresh Mange vs Suresh Manik Lokhare