DINESH DILIP PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Bail Applications are filed under Sec. 439 of CrPC,[Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.] seeking regular bail in connection with C.R. No.571 of 2018 registered with Pant Nagar Police Station for offences are under Ss. 302, 363, 364, 365, 394, 201, 120B and Sec. 34 of IPC,[Indian Penal Code, 1860] and Sec. 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Applicant in Bail Application No.340 of 2025 - Dinesh Dilip Pawar arraigned as Accused No.2 who was arrested on 10/12/2018. Applicant in Bail Application No.758 of 2025 - Siddesh Shankar Patil is Accused No.3 who was arrested on 12/12/2018. Complainant is the son of the deceased victim who had initially filed an FIR under Sec. 363 of IPC, remainder of charges were added at a subsequent stage.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the present Applicants along with other co-accused hatched a conspiracy to assist Accused No.1 in killing the suitor who is the deceased victim since he had an oblique eye on his girlfriend. Indictment of Applicants is because they were allegedly seen accompanying him in the car alongwith Accused No. 1 and the victim about 72 hours prior to discovery of the decomposed body of deceased at a far of place. Accused No.1 has been released on bail by order dtd. 14/12/2024 on the ground of his long incarceration pending trial. Accused Nos. 4 and 7 have also been released on bail on similar grounds earlier.

(3.) Mr. Munde, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Applicants would submit that Applicants were in custody for a period of more than six years and three months. He would bring to my attention the list of witnesses submitted by prosecution before the Trial Court and would submit that the list runs into about 180 witnesses and thus completion of trial would take a considerable time. He would draw my attention to the bail orders of other co-accused who have been released on bail and would urge the court to consider the present Bail Applications on ground of parity and long incarceration of the Applicants pending trial. He would submit that evidence against Applicants is circumstantial in nature and their indictment is primarily based on 'last seen theory' alongwith Accused No. 1 who has been enlarged on bail. He would submit that the last seen theory is much earlier in point of time and therefore cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by any cogent and relevant prima facie evidence which is lacking. Hence he would persuade the Court to allow the Application.