BA/1257/2026 of KAMAL KESHAV VISHWAS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO. PS ARJUNI, MOR GONDIA on 14 October 2026

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

2. The application is filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in connection with Crime No.66 of 2026, registered with Police Station Arjuni Morgaon, Dist. Gondia, for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that an accidental death has been registered vide AD No.03 of 2026, on the 2026:BHC-NAG:13953

basis of a report lodged by Police Patil of village Gaurnagar. In her report, she stated that on 26.01.2026, at 04.30 a.m., one Kirtiwas Vaidhya, came to her house and informed that his sister Kalpna is not responding. At that time, elder son of deceased Kalpna namely Shankar, disclosed that on 25.01.2026, at about 03.30 p.m., his mother along with his younger brother and father had come to Gaurnagar. He further stated that when he woke up at about 03.45 a.m., he saw that his father was taking his younger brother Vihan with him. However, after some time, Vihan returned to home, whereas his father left the house alone. Shankar further stated that when he tried to wake up his mother, she did not respond. Therefore, he informed the neighbors and called a Doctor and upon examination of Kalpna, the Doctor reported that Kalpna died under suspicious condition. On the basis of the statement of her son Shankar, involvement of the applicant surfaced. Hence, the FIR was registered on 27.01.2026.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. However, the prosecution relies upon the statement of Shankar, son of the deceased and the applicant, who stated that the deceased was in the company of the applicant at the time of incident, which allegedly occurred during the intervening night of 25.01.2026 and 26.01.2026. He submits that as per the statement of Shankar, quarrels had taken place between the applicant and the deceased on two occasions during the said night. However, when Shankar woke up at about 3.45 a.m., he found that his mother is not responding. He submits that the statement of Shankar cannot be relied upon at present for the reason that he was sleeping at the relevant time with the present applicant and the deceased. He submits that, had the applicant committed murder of the deceased, being the son of both the applicant and the deceased, would have disclosed the same. It is, therefore, contended that Shankar appears to have been introduced as a witness against the applicant, particularly when no other material is available on record to implicate the applicant in the alleged crime. He submits that except the statement of Shankar, there is no other incriminating material placed on record against the applicant and therefore, the applicant deserves to be granted bail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that at the relevant time, the deceased and the applicant were quarreling with each other and the said fact could be gathered from the other witnesses also. She submits that there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of son Shankar, wherein he has specifically stated that, on two occasions during that night, there were quarrels between the applicant and the deceased as the applicant was insisting that he do not want to reside at the place where his wife is residing and he wanted to leave that place and wanted to reside at Shankar Nagar. She submits that, again second quarrel took place at 02.30 a.m. in that night and the applicant killed the deceased, however, the said witness woke up at 03.45 a.m. and found that the deceased was not responding. Accordingly, he has informed the neighbors. She submits that in the FIR itself, it was stated that the applicant and the deceased were in the company of each other. She submits that considering the cause of death i.e. mechanical asphyxia and there are injuries on the body of the deceased, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail.

6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides and perusal of the first information report as well as the material placed before me, it appears that the incident has occurred in the intervening night of 25.01.2026 to 26.01.2026. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of Shankar, who is the son of the deceased and the applicant. He has categorically stated that, on two occasions during that night i.e. at 11.00 p.m. and 02.30 a.m., there were quarrels between the applicant and the deceased and when he woke up at 03.45 a.m., he found that his mother i.e. the deceased was not responding and the applicant was leaving the spot along with his younger son. Therefore, immediately, he informed the neighbors. It further appears that the said fact has also been corroborated with the statements of other independent witnesses. Under such circumstances, considering the nature of allegations, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. It is to be noted that the trial has already been commenced and five witnesses have already been examined.

7. With the above observations, the application is rejected.

8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

9. Fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per Rules by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur.

(M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) asd