Sagar Suresh Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

Sagar Suresh Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on bail in Crime No. 216 of 2021 (Sangvi Police Station, District Pune) on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; conditions: to attend the concerned police station as and when required, and not to tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, accused of offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 120-B IPC in Crime No. 216 of 2021 (Sangvi Police Station, Pune), should be enlarged on regular bail. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

Bail was granted inter alia because the eyewitness statements were recorded two years after the incident and their evidentiary value remains to be tested before the trial court.

Key takeaways

With the test identification parade not conducted and the prosecution case resting on circumstantial evidence, trial was required to prove the applicant's role in the crime, supporting his enlargement on bail.ratio¶22
The applicant's custody for more than four years and seven months, absence of trial progress, and the time the trial would take, weighed in favour of releasing him on bail.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Murder and allied offences (Ss. 302, 364, 201, 120-B IPC), Crime No. 216 of 2021, Sangvi Police Station, District Pune — Prosecution case of May 2019 murder of deceased Dhiraj by applicant and co-accused over an old dispute — Eyewitness statements recorded two years after the incident; their evidentiary value left to be tested before the trial court — Test identification parade of applicant not conducted; prosecution case regarded as based on circumstantial evidence, with trial required to prove the applicant's role — Applicant in custody over four years and seven months with no progress in trial, which would take time to conclude — Regular bail allowed on P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount; conditions of periodic police-station attendance and non-tampering/non-contact with complainant and witnesses — Observations expressly confined to the bail purpose; trial court to decide uninfluenced. (Shivkumar Dige, J.)

8-BA-223-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2026

Sagar Suresh Jagtap ….Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

Mr. Shubhangi Parulekar along with Ms. Vrunda Surve, Advocate for Applicant.

Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr. Suresh S Kamble, PSI, Sangvi Police Station, Pune, present.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 12^th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 216 of 2021 registered with Sangvi Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.03.13 16:22:22 +0530

It is prosecution’s case that in May 2019, the applicant and co-accused murdered the deceased Dhiraj on the ground of an old dispute. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the police found an unknown dead body, and on that basis, the offence was registered. The police recorded the statements of eyewitnesses two years

Page 1 of 3

8-BA-223-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

after the incident, which is suspicious. The applicant has been arrested on the basis of the said statements. The test identification parade of the applicant was not conducted. The applicant is behind bars for more than four years and seven months. There is no progress in the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has 21 antecedents. There are eye-witnesses to the incident. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the application.

I have heard both the learned counsel, perused charge sheet and documents produced on record. The statements of eye-witnesses were recorded two years after the incident. The evidentiary value of the said statements will be tested before the trial court. The test identification parade of the applicant has not been conducted. The prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence. To prove the role of the applicant in the crime, trial is required. The applicant is behind bars for more than four years and seven months. There is no progress in the trial. It will take time to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 216 of 2021

registered with Sangvi Police Station, District Pune, on

Page 2 of 3

8-BA-223-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two

sureties in the like amount.

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

when required.

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

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

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.

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

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3