Bombay High Court
KIRAN RAOSAHEB JAGDALE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
Both appeals are allowed and bail is granted to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, Somnath Shingate and Narendra Sonawane in one appeal and Kiran Jagdale and Harshad Kakde in another, applied for bail in connection with CR No. 481/2025, which alleged assault and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Arms Act. The incident on 24 August 2025 involved the assault of four persons, with one victim taken to hospital and the appellants alleged to have used sticks. The defence argued that the injuries to the witnesses were simple, not caused by the appellants, and that there was no risk of flight or evidence tampering, citing injury certificates. The State opposed bail, contending that the FIR and witness statements supported the charges and that bail could facilitate interference with evidence. The court, after noting that the injuries could not be attributed to the appellants and that pre‑trial detention was unnecessary, granted bail to all appellants, imposing conditions of surety, attendance at hearings, and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Arms Act.
- Whether the nature of the injuries and the risk of evidence tampering justify pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the appellants are likely to flee from justice.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 4/25
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 118(1), 118(2), 119(2), 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238, 324(4), 351(2), 61(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- assault
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- evidence tampering
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43470
936 & 937.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
936 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 480 OF 2026
1. Somnath Kashinath Shingate
2. Narendra Shahaji Sonawane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, Advocate for Appellants
Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondent No.1/State
Mr. S. E. Shekade, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
937 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 503 OF 2026
1. Kiran Raosaheb Jagdale
2. Harshad @ Harshwardhan Pratap Kakde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
Mr. I. D. Maniyar, Advocate for Appellants
Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondent No.1/State
Mr. S. E. Shekade, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
CORAM :R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE :SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
P. C. :
1. Appellants seek bail in connection with C.R. No. 481/2025
registered with Police Station Jamkhed, District Ahilyanagar for the offences
punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 118(2), 119(2), 324(4), 189(2),
191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2), 126(2), 61(2), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
Page 1 of 3
936 & 937.odt
2. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that on 24.08.2025 at
about 11.00 pm an incident occurred in which Adarsha, Digvijay, Vaibhav
and Yashdeep were assaulted by co-accused. While Yashdeep was taken to
the hospital, Appellants and other accused persons obstructed them. There
are allegations against present Appellants that they used sticks in order to
caused assault.
3. Learned Counsels for the Appellants submit that after
conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and now,
Appellants cannot be kept in custody by way of pre-trial sentence. In order
to support their submissions, they drew attention of the Court to the injury
certificates of the witnesses whose injuries could be attributed to the present
Appellants. By referring to the injury certificates, they argued that simple
injuries were caused to them. It is specifically pointed out that injuries
caused to Abhijeet are by sharp edged weapon, which is not attributed to
the present Appellants. They, therefore, seek bail of the Appellants.
4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant opposed grant
of any relief to the Appellants by referring to the allegations in the FIR,
which according to them, are supported by the statements of witnesses so
also injury certificates on record. According to them, if the Appellants are
enlarged on bail, they are likely to interfere in the evidence of prosecution.
5. Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that the injuries
Page 2 of 3
936 & 937.odt
caused to Abhijit are not attributable to the present Appellants. In so far as
injuries alleged to have been caused by the Appellants to the other
witnesses, they are simple in nature. Having regard to the said fact, this
Court finds substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the
Appellants that their further custody is not necessary. Needless to say that
Appellants cannot be kept in jail by pre-trial sentence. They are not likely to
flee from justice. Hence, the order:
ORDER
(i) Both Appeals are allowed.
(ii) Appellants in connection with C.R. No. 481/2025 registered
with Police Station Jamkhed, District Ahilyanagar for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 118(2),
119(2), 324(4), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2),
126(2), 61(2), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, shall be released on bail on
furnishing PB and SB of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand
Only) each with one surety in the like amount.
(iii) They shall attend all dates of hearing before Trial Court
unless exempted.
(iv) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(v) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…