Bombay High Court
SURYAKANT @ PANDIT DASHRATH KAMBLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted because the appellant's role is analogous to that of a co‑accused previously released on bail and there has been no substantive progress in the trial.
Summary
The appellant, Suryakant @ Pandit Dashrath Kamble, was convicted in a murder case (Crime No.171 of 2023) involving multiple offences under the IPC, Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and MCOC Act. He sought bail, which the Special Court had denied. The appellant argued that a co‑accused, Pradeep Pawar, had been released on bail in a similar case, and that he had been in custody for over a year without trial progress. The State contended that the appellant was involved in several other serious cases, justifying denial of bail. The High Court, noting the similarity of roles and the lack of trial advancement, allowed the appeal and granted bail with strict conditions. The order set aside the Special Court’s decision and prescribed a bond, residence reporting, and restrictions on movement and tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences and his involvement in other cases
- Whether the precedent of bail granted to a co‑accused in a similar case warrants granting bail to the appellant
- Whether the conditions imposed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and MCOC Act are sufficient to justify bail
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
- scheduled caste atrocities
- organized crime
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act
- court precedent
Judgment
1 903-APEAL 568-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.568 OF 2026
Suryakant @ Pandit Dashrath Kamble … 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. Darshana Kambli, 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
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 takes exception to
MUGDHA the order dated 21st April 2026 passed by the Special Court, Pune below
MANOJ
PARANJAPE
Digitally signed by
Exhibit 95 in Special Case No.160 of 2024.
MUGDHA MANOJ
PARANJAPE
Date: 2026.09.05
17:25:29 +0530
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 568-26.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 one year and five months 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 seven more cases of a serious nature. It is submitted that
considering the nature of crime, the Appellant may not be released on
bail.
Mugdha 2 of 4
3 903-APEAL 568-26.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 one year and five months. 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 568-26.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…