The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a 70-year-old Satara resident accused of murdering a young girl by slitting her throat, allegedly as part of a human sacrifice ritual aimed at acquiring prosperity and hidden wealth.

The accused, Mohansingh Sitaram Naik, faced charges in a case involving dark rituals and criminal conspiracy.

Single-judge Justice SG Dige noted that although the allegations were grave, Naik's advanced age and the length of his incarceration were significant factors in his bail consideration.

"The applicant is more than 70 year old, he is behind bar for more than two years. Charge has been framed against the applicant, yet trial has not been commenced. It may take time to conclude the trial," the Court said.

The Court highlighted that these factors influenced the decision to grant bail but clarified that the trial court would adjudicate the case independently, "uninfluenced by the observations made in this order."

The case involved the brutal murder of a young woman, purportedly as a human sacrifice for material gain. The prosecution alleged that Naik conspired with others to carry out the sacrifice, with Naik reportedly keeping watch while a co-accused slit the victim’s throat.

Naik faces charges under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 (murder), Section 201 (destruction of evidence), Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and Section 34 (common intention). Additionally, he has been booked under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil, and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013.

The crime took place in 2019, and Naik has been in custody for over two years. While the charges have been framed, it was noted that the trial has yet to commence. 

During the hearing, Naik's counsel argued that, given his advanced age of over 70 years and his prolonged incarceration, he should be granted bail. The defense also challenged the credibility of a key witness, Aniket Aatkari, whose statement was recorded three years after the incident. It was pointed out that Aatkari initially did not mention Naik's involvement but later claimed to have seen him at the crime scene.  

Assuring the court of his compliance, Naik’s counsel stated that he would remain outside Satara District until the trial concludes and adhere to all bail conditions. 

However, the prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, asserting that Naik played a crucial role in the conspiracy and murder. They argued that his release could lead to witness intimidation or absconding, thereby obstructing justice.  

After considering both sides, the Court granted bail to Naik, imposing strict conditions. He was required to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount, report to the nearest police station once a month until the trial concludes, and notify authorities of any change in his address or contact details. Additionally, he was barred from entering Satara District except for court proceedings and was strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses.