Khan also cited alleged political rivalry, contending that the applicant had been implicated due to political differences.
He was directed not to tamper with evidence or contact prosecution witnesses, to cooperate with the investigation, disclose his whereabouts and attend the police station every Sunday between 2 pm and 4 pm. The court also directed him to deposit ₹70,000 towards the Police Welfare Fund, Solapur Rural, within four weeks, as volunteered by him. Justice Shailesh P Brahme passed the order in connection with a murder case registered at Kurduwadi police station in Solapur district for offences including murder, criminal conspiracy, rioting and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code.
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has granted anticipatory bail to ex-corporator Subhash alias Laxman Jagtap, an accused in a 2018 murder case, observing that the acquittal of his co-accused on merits and the evidence recorded during their trial were relevant developments warranting protection from arrest. Advocate Sana Raees Khan, appearing for Jagtap, argued that the acquittal of the co-accused on February 10, 2023, after the prosecution examined five eyewitnesses, had fundamentally altered the circumstances of the case. Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that Jagtap had been absconding since 2018 and that efforts had been made to secure his presence. The State also relied on the rejection of his earlier anticipatory bail application in 2019 and the subsequent rejection of his plea by the Sessions Court in November 2025. Allowing the application, the court directed that Jagtap be released on bail in the event of his arrest upon furnishing a personal recognisance bond of ₹50,000, along with one or two solvent sureties.
She pointed to admissions elicited during the cross-examination of eyewitnesses, including the informant, which had undermined the prosecution’s case. She also referred to the evidence recorded during the trial of the co-accused. It further observed that, although Jagtap was shown as absconding, no steps had been taken to proceed against his property or formally declare him an absconder.
The High Court noted that the earlier rejection order had been annexed to the present application and that the acquittal of the co-accused constituted a subsequent development.