Allowed

Nanasaheb Baban Landge v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Mar 2026BA/39/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted, Bombay High Court, single judge (Shivkumar Dige J.), 2026; Section 302 IPC murder charge; Crime No. 277 of 2019, Khandeshwar Police Station, Raigad; alleged killing of wife by stone assault during quarrel; prosecution case based on extra-judicial confession; evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession left to trial; prolonged incarceration of more than six years; no progre

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of the applicant on bail in Crime No. 277 of 2019 (Khandeshwar Police Station, District Raigad) on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; applic

Nanasaheb Baban Landge Vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

6-BA-39-2026.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2026

¶5

Nanasaheb Baban Landge … Applicant/s Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent/s

¶6

Ms. Deepa Punjani, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 4^th MARCH, 2026.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 277 of 2019 registered with Khandeshwar Police Station, District - Raigad, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

¶10

It is prosecution’s case that the applicant murdered his wife by assaulting her with stone on her head on the ground of quarrel between them.

¶11

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the incident happened due to sudden quarrel. The prosecution’s case is based Digitallysigned by on extra-judicial confession. The applicant is behind bars for more than six SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKARKADAM KADAMDate: years, there is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. 2026.03.06 11:08:01 +0530 Hence, requested to allow the application.

Page 1 of 3

6-BA-39-2026.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

It is contention of learned APP that the trial has commenced.

¶16

Two witnesses have been examined. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

¶17

I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. It appears that the prosecution’s case is based on extra-judicial confession. The evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession can be considered at the stage of trial. The applicant is behind bars for more than six years, there is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. It may take time to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order :

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 277 of 2019 registered with Khandeshwar Police Station, District - Raigad, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

Page 2 of 3

6-BA-39-2026.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Nanasaheb Baban Landge v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanasaheb Baban Landge 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