The Bombay High Court has restored bail to a 65-year-old accused in a social activist's murder case, holding that bail cannot be cancelled mechanically on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of witness intimidation without sufficient material demonstrating misuse of liberty.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav set aside the Sessions Court's decision cancelling bail, observing that the prosecution must establish fresh and convincing circumstances to justify withdrawing liberty that has already been granted.
Background
The case arose from the murder of a social activist on May 12, 2023. The applicant, Chandrabhan @ Bhanu Vishwanath Khalde, was arrayed as Accused No. 8 during the investigation. The prosecution's allegation against him primarily concerned a conspiracy to commit the murder, based on circumstantial evidence.
The Sessions Court had granted him bail on April 4, 2024. However, on October 1, 2026, the Sessions Court cancelled that bail after accepting allegations that he had threatened and attempted to influence prosecution witnesses.
This was not the first attempt to cancel his bail. The Bombay High Court had rejected an earlier cancellation application on August 20, 2025. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the challenge to that order on January 12, 2026.
Justice Jadhav noted that the applicant's name did not appear in the original FIR and that the prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence. The CCTV footage allegedly showing other accused persons visiting his residence could establish their visit, but could not, by itself, establish his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
The Court also examined allegations that the applicant had threatened witnesses. It noted the existing political rivalry and observed that several statements relied upon by the prosecution came from persons associated with the deceased's political organisation. The Court clarified that it was not making any final finding on the credibility of those witnesses.
It further pointed to the absence of sufficient independent corroboration and the need to consider the entire material, including an affidavit raising allegations of financial pressure on a prosecution witness.
The Court observed:
"The statements of interested witnesses, without sufficient independent corroboration, would require careful scrutiny."
The High Court emphasised that the Sessions Court should have examined whether any fresh and convincing material had emerged after the earlier rejection of the bail cancellation application.
It explained that the legal considerations for granting bail differ from those for cancelling it. A mere change in appreciation of previously available material or general apprehensions cannot automatically justify cancellation.
The Court held:
"Once bail has been granted, the same cannot be cancelled merely upon a different appreciation of the material which was already available or on the basis of unsubstantiated apprehensions."
It also noted that cancellation of bail directly affects an accused person's personal liberty. Any apprehension that the applicant might influence the remaining witnesses could instead be addressed through strict bail conditions.
Allowing the criminal application, the Bombay High Court quashed the Sessions Court's October 1, 2026 order cancelling bail and restored the applicant's liberty.
The Court directed his release on a personal recognisance bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one or two sureties of the same amount. He must attend trial proceedings, avoid unnecessary adjournments, refrain from entering the jurisdiction of the Wadgaon-Maval Sessions Court except for court hearings, and must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not affect the trial, which must be decided independently on the evidence presented.
Case Details
Case Title: Chandrabhan @ Bhanu Vishwanath Khalde v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Application No. 2039 of 2026
Judge: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
Decision Date: November 2, 2026
