Bombay High Court
VINAYAK GANESH KAPADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The appeal is allowed and bail is granted to the appellant subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Vinayak Ganesh Kapade appealed against the Special Court's refusal to grant bail in a murder and related offences case (Crime No.171 of 2023). The appellant, charged under multiple provisions of the IPC, Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, argued that his role was identical to that of co‑accused Pradeep Pawar, who had been released on bail in a similar case. The prosecution contended that the appellant was involved in several other serious cases, including one under the MCOC Act, and should therefore remain in custody. The High Court examined the parity of roles, the three‑year pre‑trial detention, and the lack of trial progress, and concluded that bail could be granted with strict conditions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was released on bail subject to a personal bond and several restrictions.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting bail to the appellant under Section 14‑A of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act given the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the appellant's role is sufficiently similar to that of a co‑accused who was previously granted bail.
- The impact of the appellant's involvement in other pending serious offences on the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 4(25), 5(25)(35)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 129-B, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 302
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4)
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1)(3)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A, 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(Va), 6
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- organized crime
- SC & ST Act
- MCOC Act
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- appeal
Judgment
1 903-APEAL 561-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.561 OF 2026
Vinayak Ganesh Kapade … Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
-----
Mr. Priyal G. Sarda a/w Seema S. Dighe for the Appellant.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Kanchan Pawar, appointed advocate for Respondent No.2.
-----
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 29TH AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
1. This Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the
MUGDHA Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 takes exception to
MANOJ
PARANJAPE
Digitally signed by
the order dated 21st April 2026 passed by the Special Court, Pune below
MUGDHA MANOJ
PARANJAPE
Date: 2026.09.05
17:25:15 +0530
Exhibit 93 in Special Case No.160 of 2024.
2. By the impugned order, the Learned Special Court has rejected the
application for bail filed by the present Appellant, who is in custody in
Crime No.171 of 2023 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147,
148, 149, 129-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(25), 5(25)(35) of
the Arms Act, Sections 37(1)(3)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(v), 6 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC & ST
Act”) and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short “MCOC Act”).
Mugdha 1 of 4
2 903-APEAL 561-26.doc
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the present Appellant is a
member of organised crime syndicate, formed by co-accused Sagar
Kolanatti. It is alleged that on the date of incident, which took place on
15th August 2023, on account of previous enmity, the present Appellant
along with other co-accused assaulted the deceased by sword, koyta, etc.
and committed his murder.
4. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Learned APP for
Respondent No.1-State and Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn my attention to the
order passed by this court dated 16 th March 2026 in Criminal Appeal
No.1200 of 2025, by which this Court has released co-accused Pradeep
Pawar on bail. It is submitted that role attributed to the said co-accused
and present Appellant is the same. It is submitted that the Appellant is in
jail for three years and except framing of charge, there is no progress in
the trial.
6. On the other hand, Learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and
Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submit that the Appellant is
involved in five more cases of a serious nature, out of which one of the
crime is for the offence under the MCOC Act. It is submitted that
considering the nature of crime, the Appellant may not be released on
bail.
Mugdha 2 of 4
3 903-APEAL 561-26.doc
7. I have perused the chargesheet. The role attributed to co-accused
Pradeep Pawar and present Appellant appears to be similar. The Appellant
is in jail for three years. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I
am inclined to release the Appellant on bail, subject to certain conditions.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
i. The Appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is set aside.
iii. The Appellant be released on bail in Crime No.171 of
2023 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 141, 142,
143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 129-B of the Indian
Penal Code, Sections 4(25), 5(25)(35) of the Arms
Act, Sections 37(1)(3)/135 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(v), 6 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4)
of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,
1999 on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
iv. The Appellant shall not enter into the municipal limits
of Pune City till conclusion of the trial except to attend
the dates before the trial court.
v. The Appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
vi. The Appellant shall not commit any other crime.
Mugdha 3 of 4
4 903-APEAL 561-26.doc
vi. The Appellant shall furnish his residential address and
the contact number to the concerned police station.
vii. Liberty is granted to the prosecution as well as
Respondent No.2 to file an application for
cancellation of bail in case the Appellant commits
breach of any of above conditions.
8. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
Mugdha 4 of 4
Checking your session…