Allowed

Vinod Bhanudas Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jan 2026BA/334/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; murder under s.302 IPC read with s.120B (common intention) and ss.143–149 (unlawful assembly) IPC; hurt provisions ss.323, 324, 326, 504, 506 IPC; s.135 Maharashtra Police Act; Crime No.14/2024, Chandwad Police Station, Nashik; FIR by wife of deceased attributing no assault role to applicant beyond abuse; delayed statement of witness Prashant Thorat (recorded two days after incident)

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the Applicant-Vinod Bhanudas Kshirsagar in Crime No.14 of 2024 (Chandwad Police Station, Nashik) on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the

Vinod Bhanudas Kshirsagar Vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

4-BA-334-2025.doc

¶2

N.S.Kamble

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 334 OF 2025

¶5

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2026.01.09 11:27:19 +0530

¶6

Vinod Bhanudas Kshirsagar … Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr.Akshay Bankapur, for the Applicant. Mr.Arfan Sait, APP for Respondent-State.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 8^th JANUARY, 2026

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.14 of 2024 registered with Chandwad Police Station, Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 326, 324, 323,

¶12

504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶13

It is prosecution’s case that on 16^th January 2024, the Applicant and co-accused assaulted the husband of First Informant with sickle and knife and murdered him. It is alleged that the Applicant caught

Page 1 of 4

4-BA-334-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

hold one hand of the deceased whereas co-accused assaulted him with knife and sickle.

¶18

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the counter complaint is filed by wife of the Applicant against the deceased and First Informant. In the FIR, no role is attributed to the Applicant except abusing the deceased. The main role is attributed to the coaccused Piyush Sutar and Raj Kshirsagar. After two days of the incident, statement of the witness Prashant Thorat is recorded. In the said statement, the role attributed to the Applicant is that he had caught holding one hand of the deceased. The learned counsel further submitted that the Applicant is behind bar for around one and half year. Though charge is framed, there is no progress in the trial. The co-accused have been released on bail. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶19

It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant along with co-accused assaulted the deceased with sickle and knife. The specific role is attributed to the Applicant is that he caught hold one hand of the deceased and other co-accused assaulted him with knife and sickle. The incident is witnessed by eye witness. The Applicant had motive to kill the deceased. The Applicant and prosecution witnesses stays in the same

Page 2 of 4

4-BA-334-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

locality. If Applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses. The Applicant has one antecedent. Charge has been framed. There is progress in the trial. Hence, requested to reject the Application.

¶24

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.

¶25

The FIR is lodged by wife of the deceased. No role is attributed to the Applicant in it, except abusing the deceased and First Informant. The statement of the witness Prashant Thorat is recorded after two days. In statement, he has stated that, the Applicant had caught hold one hand of the deceased whereas co-accused assaulted him with sharp weapon. In FIR, no role of assault to the deceased attributed to the Applicant. The Applicant is behind bar for more than one year and six months. Though charge is framed, there is no progress in the trial.

¶26

Considering these facts, I pass following order.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) The Applicant-Vinod Bhanudas Kshirsagar, be released on bail in Crime No.14 of 2024 registered with Chandwad Police Station, Nashik, on furnishing PR bond of

Page 3 of 4

4-BA-334-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like

¶33

amount.

¶34

(ii) The Applicant shall not contact the First Informant and prosecutions witnesses.

¶35

(iii) The Applicant shall not not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶36

(iv) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶37

(v) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶38

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Vinod Bhanudas Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Bhanudas Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases