Vishal Vikas Sasane vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

Vishal Vikas Sasane vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail in C.R. No. 284 of 2025 (Chandannagar Police Station, Pune) on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; applicant 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 should be enlarged on regular bail in C.R. No. 284 of 2025 registered with Chandannagar Police Station, Pune, for offences under Sections 103(1), 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Court's answer

The prosecution's case against the applicant is based on circumstantial evidence, and evidence is required to prove the case against the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Bail was favoured considering that the applicant has been behind bars for more than eight months, has no antecedents, and it may take time to conclude the trial.

Key takeaways

The applicant is enlarged on bail in C.R. No. 284 of 2025 registered with Chandannagar Police Station, Pune, on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.ratio¶¶20
Condition of bail: the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.ratio¶¶21
Condition of bail: the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Shivkumar Dige, J.), Bail Application No. 835 of 2026, decided 15 April 2026 — Vishal Vikas Sasane v. State of Maharashtra: Regular bail granted in C.R. No. 284 of 2025, Chandannagar Police Station, Pune, for offences under Sections 103(1), 109(1) read with 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Prosecution case: applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant on 17.07.2025 at 3:00 p.m.; the informant died during treatment after 8 days from hospital admission. Court noted the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence requiring evidence to be proved, the applicant had been behind bars for more than eight months, had no antecedents, and the trial may take time. Bail ordered on P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions that the applicant attend the concerned police station as and when required and refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing or contacting the complainant, witnesses or persons concerned with the case. Observations expressly confined to the purpose of granting bail; Trial Court to decide the case on its own merits uninfluenced by them.

13-BA-835-2026 (CR).doc

S .S. Kilaje

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 835 OF 2026

Vishal Vikas Sasane … Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra … Respondent

Ms. Savvy Kolhekar a/w. Ms. Juhi Kadu i/b. Mr. Aniket Vagal, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. S.M.Mangaonkar. APP for Respondent-State.

API – V.V.Dhurve, Chandan Nagar Police Station, Pune city, present.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 15^th APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 284 of 2025 registered with Chandannagar Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1) r/w. 3(5) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS Act”).

It is prosecution’s case that on 17.07.2025 at 3:00 p.m., the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant causing serious injuries. The first informant died while undergoing treatment after 8 days from the date of admission in the hospital.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence. The applicant is behind bars for more than eight months. There is no recovery at the instance of the applicant and requested to allow the application.

Page 1 of 3

13-BA-835-2026 (CR).doc

S .S. Kilaje

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant was last seen with the deceased. There are CDRs showing that the applicant was in contact with the deceased. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. The prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence. To prove the case against the applicant, evidence is required. The applicant is behind bars for more than eight months. The applicant has no antecedents. It may take time to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

i. The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 284 of 2025 registered with Chandannagar Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- on furnishing 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.

Page 2 of 3

13-BA-835-2026 (CR).doc

S .S. Kilaje

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, 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.)

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISHKILAJE Date:2026.04.2018:10:20+0700

Page 3 of 3