The Bombay High Court has granted bail to businessman Nitesh Patil, accused of murdering his neighbouring rival, citing that the evidence presented by Raigad police only raised suspicion and was not compelling enough to justify continued custody.

Justice Ashwin D Bhobe, while delivering the order, said, “Material placed on record is inferential in character, which at the most may raise suspicion. The prosecution will have to prove the circumstances relied upon during trial. Prima facie, the material is not so compelling to deny bail to the applicant. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.”

The case dates back to May 10, 2024, when Bhanudas Chaudhari, who operated a refreshment shop adjacent to Patil’s on the Mumbai-Pune Expressway near the Khalapur toll, failed to return home. The next day, his wife and son discovered his injured body behind the shop.

Initially, an FIR was filed against unknown persons. However, CCTV footage later showed Patil and another accused at their shop at 5 am. The wife of the deceased alleged that Patil harboured a business rivalry with Chaudhari, as the latter attracted more customers. She accused Patil of stabbing her husband 15 times and strangling him to death with the help of a local salon owner.

Appearing for Patil, advocate Ganesh Gupta argued that the prosecution’s case was built solely on circumstantial evidence. “The circumstances which are alleged against the applicant do not form a complete chain and therefore there is a doubt created in the case of the prosecution,” Gupta submitted.

He pointed out that no direct allegations were made in the FIR against his client and added, “Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed and so the accused should be released on bail.”

However, Additional Public Prosecutor PH Gaikwad opposed the plea, citing an established motive based on the statement of the victim’s wife. He also noted that the accused failed to explain his presence at the shop during unusual hours.

After examining the evidence, the court observed that while Patil and the co-accused were seen in CCTV footage, the footage was captured near Patil’s own shop and did not show the deceased. Moreover, no incriminating recoveries were made from Patil, and the police had not thoroughly investigated the cause of Chaudhari’s injuries.

The court ultimately ruled in favour of bail, saying that the available material did not justify denying Patil his liberty.

– Ends