Vilas Shankar Mali vs State of Maharashtra, Thr… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

Vilas Shankar Mali vs State of Maharashtra, Thr… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant/accused Vilas Shankar Mali to be released on regular bail in Crime No.171/2024 (Police Station Ural, District Akola) on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to conditions: no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and no tampering with evidence; providing residential address and cell number to the police station and no change of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency; attendance at every trial date, failing which the State may seek cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the applicant Vilas Shankar Mali, accused aged 62 years in Crime No.171/2024 (offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Ural, District Akola) for the alleged murder of Shrikrushna Mali.

Court's answer

The statement of eyewitness Milind was recorded eight days after the incident, which creates doubt about its veracity even though he was shown as an eye-witness, and the Court found no sufficient explanation for the delay in recording his statement.

Ratio / Principle

There is a discrepancy in the investigation material: the spot panchanama and the First Information Report show both an axe and a sickle, whereas the dog-squad police constable's statement records only an axe on the spot.

Key takeaways

Taking into account the investigative discrepancies, the applicant's age of 62 years, his custody of almost two years, and the absence of criminal antecedents, the Court inclined to grant bail on imposing stringent conditions.ratio¶¶28
The Court's observations are prima facie in nature, restricted to this bail application only, and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by them.obiter¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail granted — Murder (Sections 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860) — Crime No.171/2024, Police Station Ural, District Akola — Applicant Vilas Shankar Mali, aged 62 years, in custody since arrest on 20/04/2024 (almost two years), chargesheet filed, no criminal antecedents — F.I.R. dated 17/04/2024 lodged on the basis of suspicion by the deceased's son following death of Shrikrushna Mali amid a prior dispute over an agricultural pathway — Court noted investigative discrepancies: spot panchanama and F.I.R. showed both an axe and a sickle, but the dog-squad police constable's statement recorded only an axe on the spot; the eyewitness (Milind) statement was recorded eight days after the incident of 16/04/2024 without sufficient explanation for the delay, casting doubt on its veracity — On these facts, together with the applicant's age, prolonged custody and clean antecedents, the High Court (Nagpur Bench, M.M. Nerlikar, J.) allowed the bail application and ordered release on a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount, imposing stringent conditions (no inducement/threat/promise or tampering with evidence; disclosure of residential address and cell number; attendance at every trial date, default entailing cancellation) — Observations expressly declared prima facie and restricted to the bail application; Trial Court not to be influenced by them.

2026:BHC-NAG:2842

1

12-Cr.BA-426-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 426 OF 2025

Vilas Shankar Mali

-- VERSUS --

State of Maharashtra

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. T.H. Udeshi, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2026.

Heard.

The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.171/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, IPC, registered with Police Station Ural, District Akola.

As per the F.I.R. dated 17/04/2024, there was a prior dispute between the deceased Shrikrushna Mali and accused Prasad Mali regarding use of an agricultural pathway/field access. On 16/04/2024, the deceased had gone to his agricultural field in the morning and did not return till evening. Upon search, he was found lying dead in the adjoining field of Prasad Mali, with blood-stained clothes. An axe and a sickle were found near the

2

12-Cr.BA-426-2025

body. On the basis of the earlier dispute and surrounding circumstances, suspicion was expressed against Vilas Mali, Prasad Mali and Malubai Mali, alleging that they had assaulted the deceased with sharp weapons, and accordingly the crime came to be registered.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, initially, the First Information Report was registered on 17/04/2024, wherein, it was suspected that the present applicant and his son - Prasad might have killed the deceased - Shrikrushna. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged only on the basis of suspicion, however, there is no concrete proof to that effect. He further submits that, from the perusal of the investigation paper, it appears that, the story has been cooked up by the police agency which could be gathered from the spot panchanama, wherein sickle was shown along with an axe. He further invited my attention to the statement of police constable, wherein the dog squad was called, in which only axe was shown, however, there is no reference in the statement about the sickle and this statement was recorded on 16/04/2024, and it appears that, immediately, the dog squat was called at the spot. The learned counsel for the applicant further invited my attention to the statement of eyewitness, which

3

12-Cr.BA-426-2025

was recorded on 24/04/2024, wherein it is alleged that the present applicant along with his son has assaulted the deceased - Shrikrushna with the help of axe. He further invited my attention to the statement of witness, namely, Milind Wagh, wherein in his statement under Section 164, the principal allegations are against Prasad, and the role attributed to the present applicant is shown that he has held the deceased - Shrikrushna. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the story is cooked up by the Investigating agency. The statement of so called eyewitness was recorded on 24/04/2024, whereas the incident took place on 16/04/2024. The said delay is tried to be explained in the last paragraph which states that the applicant was arrested on 20/04/2024, and therefore, as the applicant was arrested he came forward to give the statement. He further invited my attention to one case, wherein the father of the said witness Milind Wagh was accused and the family of the applicant are witnesses in the same incident, and therefore, according to him, the witness is a planted witness, and therefore, cannot be believed. He further submits that now the chargesheet is filed, and the applicant was arrested on 20/04/2024, almost two years are over. However, there are no antecedents, and therefore, considering all these facts especially that the applicant is of 62 years of age, the applicant be released on bail.

4

12-Cr.BA-426-2025

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the application and submits that since from the beginning, even in the First Information Report, though, the report was filed on the basis of suspicion, however, the suspicion was on the applicant and his son. She further submits that the eyewitness unequivocally disclosed about witnessing the incident and the aggravated role attributable to the present applicant as well as his son, namely, Prasad. She further submits that the said act of the present applicant and his son was corroborated by the injuries in the post-mortem report. The eye witness - Milind, has stated that the blows were given on neck and head, and therefore, the said statement cannot be brushed aside. She further invited my attention to the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Even in this statement, said witness Milind, has stated against the present applicant as well as his son and their overt act, and therefore, submits that the applicant and his son are responsible for the death of deceased – Shrikrushna and requested to reject the application.

I have considered the rival submissions, admittedly, the incident took place on 16/04/2024. The First Information Report was registered by the son - Dhyaneshwar suspecting the role of the present applicant in the murder of his father. As the

5

12-Cr.BA-426-2025

investigation progressed, it appears that, the spot panchanama was drawn, wherein in the spot panchanama, two articles are shown, i.e., axe and sickle. Even in the First Information Report, both these articles are shown, however, very interestingly, when the dog squad was called and the statement of one of the Police constable was recorded only axe was shown on the spot. Further, it is to be noted that the statement of Milind, was recorded after eight days of the incident, and therefore, it creates doubt about the veracity of the said statement, though he was shown as eye-witness. Further, I do not find sufficient explanation for delay in recording his statement. Considering all these facts, and the fact that the applicant is of 62 years of age, and is behind bar since from two years, and there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant on imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order:-

O R D E R

(i) The Criminal Application is allowed;

(ii) The applicant/accused (Vilas Shankar Mali) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.171/2024 registered with Police Station Ural, District Akola, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read

6

12-Cr.BA-426-2025

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, IPC, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/(Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) with one solvent surety in the like amount;

(iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence;

(iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency;

(v) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail or even trial Court suo moto take cognizance of this and cancel the bail;

(vi) Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of this Court and the

7

12-Cr.BA-426-2025

observations are restricted to this bail application only.

[ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ]

Piyush Mahajan