Bombay High Court
SHUBHAM VIKAS RAJPUREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with strict conditions, finding that the circumstances did not warrant denial of bail.
Summary
The applicant, Shubham Vikas Rajpure, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with a case alleging attempted murder and assault (IPC Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34). The FIR was lodged five days after the incident and did not initially name the applicant; his involvement was first recorded in a supplementary statement three months later. The applicant had been in custody for a different case for over three years and was released on bail in January 2026, making him available for interrogation, and the investigation in the present case was nearly complete. The State opposed bail, citing fourteen prior antecedents, while the applicant highlighted acquittals and wrongful accusations in other matters. The Court, noting the lack of direct evidence linking the applicant to the crime and his availability for investigation, granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, including a bond, reporting requirements, and restrictions on contacting witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 438 CrPC despite prior criminal antecedents and alleged involvement in the offence.
- Whether the delay in naming the applicant in the FIR and the availability of the applicant for custodial interrogation affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 307, 34, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- IPC Sections 307 504 506 34
- prior antecedents
- bail conditions
- investigation
- supplementary statement
Judgment
909-ABA-441-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.441 OF 2026
Shubham Vikas Rajpure …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Shailesh Kharat a/w. Mr. Onkar Chaudhari, for the Applicant.
Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Kashiraj Vitthal Jadhav, GPSI, attached to Baramati Police
Station, Pune, present.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 17th FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Kharat, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant and Ms. Newton, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State.
2. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection
with C.R. No.488 of 2022 registered with Baramati Police Station,
Pune Rural, District-Pune, for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
Page 1
Sonali
909-ABA-441-2026.DOC
3. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.2 of the
order dated 20th June 2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Baramati, District-Pune, in Sessions Case No.89 of
2023, which reads as under:
“2. It is case of prosecution that, on 11/09/2022 at
about 10.30 p.m. first informant Gaurav Akash
Tawre was chitchatting with his friends on the road
in front of Pooja Hotel, MIDC, Baramati. That time,
present applicant/accused and other co-accused
came near to him and asked whereabouts of Sagar
Kajale, who is friend of first informant and they
committed rioting there. Whereupon, he replied
that, he do not know his whereabouts. On this
count, accused persons took first informant in front
of Chaudhar Wine Shop and for not telling
whereabouts of Sagar Kajale, in furtherance of their
common intention to kill first informant, gave Axe
blows on his neck and below the ear. Thereafter,
when first informant trying to escape from the
clutches of accused persons, they caught him and
gave Axe blows on his chest, shoulder, head and
near the left eye and tried to kill him. In the said
incident first informant got severe injuries and he
wasshifted to the hospital. During treatment in the
hospital, he lodged his report with the police.”
4. It is the submission of Mr. Kharat, learned Counsel appearing
for the Applicant that the FIR has been lodged on 16 th September
2022. There is delay of five days in filing the FIR. He submits that
the Applicant was arrested in C.R. No.563 of 2022 on 5 th
November 2022 and the Applicant was behind bars for about three
Page 2
Sonali
909-ABA-441-2026.DOC
years and thereafter, the Applicant has been released on bail on
13th January 2026. He submits that therefore, the Applicant was
available for the investigation and therefore custodial interrogation
is not necessary. He submits that the name of the Applicant has not
been mentioned in the FIR and the Applicant’s name has been for
the first time mentioned in the Supplementary Statement of the
First Informant dated 12th December 2022 i.e. after a period of
about three months. He submits that the Applicant is not involved
in the crime. He submits that although there are 10 antecedents
against the Applicant, the details of the same are disclosed in the
Anticipatory Bail Application. He submits that in three cases, the
Applicant has been acquitted and in one case, although his name is
not mentioned in the FIR, the Applicant has been wrongly made
accused. He submits that in other cases, the Applicant has been
released on bail.
5. Ms. Newton, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-
State strongly opposes the Anticipatory Bail Application. She
submits that there are 14 antecedents against the Applicant. She
submits that the Applicant is involved in the crime therefore, the
Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected.
Page 3
Sonali
909-ABA-441-2026.DOC
6. Perusal of the record shows that the incident in question has
taken place on 11th September 2022. The FIR has been registered
on 16th September 2022 i.e. after a period of five days. The
Applicant’s name has not been mentioned in the FIR. The
Applicant was arrested in C.R. No.563 of 2022 on 5 th November
2022. Thereafter, in Supplementary Statement of the First
Informant recorded on 12th December 2022, the Applicant’s role is
disclosed. Admittedly, the Applicant was released on bail by a
learned Single Judge by order dated 13 th January 2026 passed in
Criminal Bail Application No.1213 of 2025. Thus, the Applicant
was available for the custodial interrogation to the Respondent-
State of Maharashtra for more than three years. During that
period, the Applicant was not arrested in this case. The
Supplementary Statement also do not disclose the direct role of the
Applicant in the crime. Perusal of the record further shows that the
chargesheet has been filed against the other accused. Thus, the
investigation is almost completed.
7. While releasing the Applicant on bail, a learned Single Judge
by the said order dated 13 th January 2026 has imposed the
condition that the Applicant shall not enter in Baramati Taluka till
Page 4
Sonali
909-ABA-441-2026.DOC
recording of the evidence of the First Informant and witnesses in
said case arising out of C.R. No.563 of 2022. Therefore, the
Applicant is residing with his uncle Mr. Shekhar Tambe at Tambe
Wade, Varude, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune.
8. In any case, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out
for grant of Anticipatory Bail. However, as there are several
antecedents against the Applicant, stringent conditions are
required to be imposed upon him. In view thereof, the following
order is passed:
ORDER
(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant-Shubham Vikas
Rajapure in connection with C.R. No.488 of 2022
registered with the Baramati Police Station, Pune
Rural, District-Pune, the Applicant is directed to be
released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in
the like amount.
(b) The Applicant shall attend the Baramati Police Station,
Pune Rural, District-Pune, on 23rd February 2026 and
Page 5
Sonali
909-ABA-441-2026.DOC
24th February 2026 between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m.
and shall co-operate with the investigation. Thereafter,
the Applicant shall attend the Khed Police Station,
District-Pune, on every Sunday between 11:00 a.m. to
02:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.
(c) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and
residential address to the Investigating Officer and
shall keep the same updated, in case of any change
thereto.
(d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or
to any Police personnel.
(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not contact or influence the
Complainant or any witness in any manner.
(f) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the learned Trial Court/concerned
Sessions Court.
Page 6
Sonali
909-ABA-441-2026.DOC
9. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 7
Sonali
Checking your session…