Bombay High Court
Jagdish S/O Anil Devkar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Manora, ... on 24 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4725
Order 240326ba1184.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 1184 OF 2025.
Jagdish Anil Devkar.
-VERSUS-
State of Maharashtra.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri R.M. Daga, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri V.A. Thakare, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : MARCH 24, 2026.
Heard.
2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection
with Crime No.551/2024 registered with Manora Police
Station, District Washim for the offence punishable under
Sections 103[1] and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS). Charge sheet is filed in the matter and Section 3[5] of
the BNS came to be added.
3. The first information report came to be lodged by
one Haridas Pralhad Raut, Police Patil, that on 06.08.2024 he
received an information that one dead body is floating in the
Rgd.
Order 240326ba1184.25
2
Adan river, and when he reached there he found that crowd
had gathered on the spot. The body was taken out and there
were injuries on the head and hand of the dead body. Hence,
the report.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant
submits that this is a case of double murder. Accused Pratik is
grandson of deceased Pralhad and Nirmala, who are husband
and wife, were killed with the help of other accused persons.
The role of the present applicant is that he along with other
three accused persons has committed murder of Pralhad and
Nirmala. So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is
submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present
crime. The only circumstance which is shown against him is
recovery of bangles. It is contended that said recovery cannot
be believed for the simple reason that there is no separate test
identification memorandum panchnama of the recovered
jewellery. Even if it is believed, that there is recovery, it is
doubtful for the reason that statement of one Jyoti, who is
daughter of the deceased Pralhad and Nirmala, has been
recorded on 10.08.2024, whereas the memorandum
Rgd.
Order 240326ba1184.25
3
panchnama of seizure is also dated 10.08.2024 at about 19.00
to 19.30 hours, which mentions about bangles as well as,
articles recovered from the accused persons. There is also
discrepancy in the number of bangles in the memorandum
panchnama, wherein it was shown as six bangles, whereas in
the certificate issued by Sahane Jewelers the number is shown
as four bangles. My attention is invited to the memorandum
panchnama of Pratik dated 11.08.2024 which was executed
between 13.00 to 14.00 hours, however, after perusal of the
statement of Jyoti, dated 10.08.2024, even the articles which
are recovered from Pratik on 11.08.2024 are mentioned in her
statement of 10.08.2024, therefore, according to the learned
Counsel for the applicant, entire story of the prosecution is
concocted one. One important witness Sheikh Rihan, who
has seen the dead body being thrown from the bridge has not
identified the applicant, and merely on the basis of CDR, the
applicant cannot be roped in the crime. It is submitted that
now the investigation is complete, charge sheet is filed and the
applicant is behind bars since 08.08.2024, and the trial has not
been commenced yet, therefore, the applicant be released on
Rgd.
Order 240326ba1184.25
4
bail. The learned Counsel has relied on the judgment in case
of Thammaraya and another .vrs. The State of Karnataka -
Criminal Appeal No.649/2013 decided on 22.01.2025,
5. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. has
vehemently opposed the application by submitting that
murder of two senior citizens by their grandson along with
other co-accused (including present applicant) has been
committed. So far as the case of present applicant is
concerned, there is recovery of bangles at his behest under
Section 23[2] of the Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam. It is
submitted that though the applicant was not identified in the
test identification parade by the chowkidar Sheikh Rihan,
however, the call detail report of applicant shows that he was
present on the spot on 04.08.2024, and was also in touch with
other accused till 08.08.2024. The conduct of the applicant
having committed murder could be gathered from the
statement of his brother Shankar, and therefore, though there
may be some minor discrepancies, but, they do not go to the
root of the matter. The fact also remains that Pratik, grand son
of deceased Pralhad and Nirmala, along with other accused
Rgd.
Order 240326ba1184.25
5
persons including the present applicant has committed two
murders, and therefore, he does not deserve to be released on
bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions canvassed
by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly it appears
that the crime was committed on 04.08.2024, the first
information report came to be registered on 06.08.2024, all
the accused persons were arrested on 08.08.2024. Initially one
dead body was found in river. When grandson of deceased
Pralhad and Nirmala, Pratik was arrested upon his disclosure,
the second dead body was recovered. It further appears from
the recovery panchnama, drawn on 10.08.2024 wherein it is
shown that 6 bangles of yellow colour came to be recovered at
the behest of the applicant. Even other articles, including gold
ornaments are recovered at the behest of the applicant. It is to
be noted that the certificate issued by the Sahane Jewelers
refers to only 4 bangles and not 6 bangles, which are referred
in the panchnama. It is to be further seen that another
memorandum panchnama under Section 23[2] of the
Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam was drawn in respect of Pratik on
Rgd.
Order 240326ba1184.25
6
11.08.2024 at about 13.00 to 14.00 hours, wherein certain
articles are shown to be recovered at his behest. It is very
important to note that in the statement of Jyoti recorded on
10.08.2024, the recovery of jewellery made on 11.08.2024
was also mentioned. In such circumstances, whether the
recovery of articles are actually at the behest of the accused
persons or not, is the question. Thus, from the above facts,
the recovery itself is doubtful. This is nothing but, a lethargic
and casual approach on the part of the investigating officer.
7. There was no test identification parade conducted
in respect of the recovered articles. Therefore, the learned
Counsel for the applicant has rightly placed reliance on the
judgment in the case of Thammaraya and another .vrs. The
State of Karnataka (supra), the Supreme Court has specifically
dealt with the issue and in paragraph no.22 has held as under :
"22. Furthermore, another very crucial
missing link in the prosecution case that it
failed to conduct the Test Identification Parade
(TIP) of the recovered articles, thereby,
bringing the identification of the material
objects in Court for the first time, is under a
cloud of doubt. It is a case of sheer negligence
Rgd.
Order 240326ba1184.25
7
and dereliction of duty on the part of the
Investigating Agency and the Public Prosecutor
for not conducting Test Identification Parade
(TIP). This Court shed light on the purpose of
Test Identification Parade(TIP) in Ramkishan
Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay , wherein
it held as follows:
"20. ... These parades are held by the
police in the course of their investigation
for the purpose of enabling witnesses to
identify the properties which are the
subject-matter of the offence or to
identify the persons who are concerned
in the offence. ...the identifying
witnesses are explained the purpose of
holding these parades and are asked to
identify the properties which are the
subject-matter of the offence or the
persons who are concerned in the
offence." (emphasis supplied)."
Further in paragraph no.24, it is observed as under:
"24. Therefore, this material omission
on part of the Investigating Officer(PW-27)
in not conducting a Test Identification
Parade (TIP) of the recovered articles, more
particularly when the case of prosecution is
based solely upon recoveries of these articles,
has created holes in the fabric of the
prosecution story, which are impossible to
mend."
8. The Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal in
Rgd.
Order 240326ba1184.25
8
the aforesaid case, however, the ratio is important. Therefore,
in the present matter as observed above, the recoveries made
by the investigating officer itself creates a doubt and no test
identification parade was conducted in respect of the recovered
articles. Merely on the basis of CDR, prima facie the applicant
cannot be linked with the crime. Thus, considering the above
facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion this is a fit
case for grant of bail. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant /accused Jagdish Anil Devkar be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.551/2024 registered with Manora Police Station, District Washim for the offence punishable under Sections 103[1], 238 and 3[5] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.
(iii) The accused shall not enter within the territorial jurisdiction where the informant is residing, till the completion of the trial.
(iv) The accused shall not directly or indirectly Rgd.
Order 240326ba1184.25 9 make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence.
(v) 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.
(vi) Till commencement of the trial, the applicant/accused to attend the concerned police station on 1st and 3rd Saturday of each month, and on commencement of the trial, shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for one single date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail.
(vii) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get influenced by said observations, during the course of trial.
(viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of.
JUDGE Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation:Rgd.
PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/03/2026 10:17:53