SHUBHAM SAMBHAJI SAWATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:46508




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2026

                                  SHUBHAM SAMBHAJI SAWAT
                                             VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                 ...
           Mr. A. N. Sabnis, Advocate for Appellant
           Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. M. B. Sandanshiv, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                                                    CORAM     : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                    DATED     : 5th OCTOBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    This appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the

           Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Atrocities

           Act’) takes exception the order dated 09.12.2025 by the learned Addl.

           Sessions Judge, Jalgaon rejecting regular bail of the Appellant in connection

           with the Crime No. 196/2025, registered with Chalisgaon Rural Police

           Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1),

           140(1), 238(c), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, under Sections 3(2),

           3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

           Atrocities) Act, 1989, under Sections 3/25, 7/25, 5, 7, 27, 29 of Arms Act and

           under Sections 37(1)(3), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.


           2.    The First Information Report was lodged by the wife of the deceased.


           1 APEAL201.2026.odt                                                     1 of 6
According to the Informant, in the Gram Panchayat election, the mother of the

present Ashok was elected as Sarpanch, and co-accused Govind was elected as

Deputy Sarpanch due to the efforts taken by the husband of the Informant. It

is alleged that, during the election, they had promised to erect a statue of

Eklavya; however, thereafter, they failed to keep the said promise.

Consequently, a dispute arose between them. It is further alleged that about

one year prior to the present incident, Ashok had assaulted the deceased, in

respect of which an offence was registered. It is further alleged that accused

Shubham came to the village and met the deceased as a friend, and thereafter

the Appellant also became friends with the deceased.


3.    On 29.06.2025, at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased left his house to

attend the birthday celebration of his friend. He did not return thereafter.

When the Informant searched for the deceased, she came across a lady who

had witnessed the deceased parking his motorcycle near her shop and

thereafter leaving the place. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was

found at Kannad Ghat. Thus, the allegation is that the deceased was abducted

and thereafter murdered.


4.    Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant submits that the

Appellant was arrested in connection with the present crime on 03.07.2025.

According to him, there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report as


1 APEAL201.2026.odt                                                     2 of 6
well as in filing the missing complaint. He submits that although the husband

of the Informant had failed to return home after leaving the house on

29.06.2025, no missing report was lodged until 01.07.2025. The First

Information Report was thereafter lodged on 03.07.2025, despite the fact that

the dead body had already been found on 01.07.2025.


5.    It is further submitted that, in her statement while lodging the First

Information Report, the Informant specifically stated that she had spoken to

the deceased over the telephone at about 9.00 p.m., thereby indicating that

the deceased was alive until 9.00 p.m. He argues that the only evidence

against the Appellant is the CDR, which is not sufficient to establish his

involvement in the crime, for the reason that the CDR indicates the presence

of the person carrying the mobile phone within a radius of at least 3 to 5 km

in rural areas. He further submits that the evidence of recovery of blood-

stained clothes is not conclusive in nature, for the reason that the blood

allegedly found on the clothes of the Appellant cannot be said to be that of

the deceased.


6.    Learned APP and learned Advocate for the Informant opposed the

enlargement of the Appellant on bail, relying upon the seriousness of the

crime. According to them, there is evidence in the form of statements of

witnesses as well as CCTV footage indicating the presence of the present


1 APEAL201.2026.odt                                                    3 of 6
Appellant along with the deceased on the evening of the fateful day. It is their

contention that thereafter the deceased was not seen alive and, therefore, the

theory of last seen together would apply to the Appellant.


7.    It is further submitted that the evidence collected by the Investigating

Officer receives further support from the CCTV footage of the hotel, which

indicates the presence of the Appellant along with the co-accused and the

deceased, as well as from the call detail records. It is claimed that the

recovery of blood-stained clothes of the Appellant is sufficient to connect them

with the crime. Bail is also opposed on the ground that the provisions of the

Atrocities Act have been invoked in the present case.


8.    There is no dispute about the fact that, on 01.07.2025, the dead body of

the deceased was found. The post-mortem report indicates that the deceased

had sustained a gunshot injury as well as other injuries on his person. There is

sufficient material on record to indicate that the death of the deceased was

homicidal.


9.    The question that now arises is as to what evidence is available against

the present Appellant showing his involvement in the crime. There is no eye

witness to the incident in which deceased died. The circumstances appearing

on record needs to be appreciated for deciding the present appeal. Therefore,



1 APEAL201.2026.odt                                                       4 of 6
in the First Information Report, Informant claimed that she had spoken to the

deceased at about 9.00 p.m. on 29.06.2025. The evidence collected during

investigation i.e. CDR of mobile phone of deceased indicates that the wife of

the deceased was called at 7.12 p.m. and not at 9.00 p.m. on 29.06.2025.

There is however material in the form of CDR indicating present Appellant in

company of the deceased even thereafter. Though, the CCTV footage of the

hotel indicates the presence of the Appellant around the time of talk of

deceased with his wife, CDR on record show they being in company of each

other even thereafter.


11.   As regards the statement of the lady who had seen the deceased parking

his motorcycle, she also claimed the presence of another person. Perusal of

the record indicates that the said person, who was accompanying the

deceased while he was parking the motorcycle, was not co-accused Ashok but

Appellant Shubham.


12.   As observed above, there is evidence in the form of CDR indicating that

the Appellant was along with the deceased throughout, as the CDR of the

deceased indicates so. Thus, unlike co-accused Ashok, there is evidence other

than the blood-stained clothes to connect the Appellant with the crime.

Moreover, the statement of the lady who had seen the deceased with the

present Appellant is also sufficient to accept his involvement in the crime,


1 APEAL201.2026.odt                                                    5 of 6
namely, the murder of the deceased. Having regard to these facts, there is

prima facie evidence against the Appellant showing his complicity in the

serious crime of murder. Hence, this is not a case for grant of bail. Hence, the

Appeal stands rejected.



                                                      ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




1 APEAL201.2026.odt                                                        6 of 6