Bombay High Court

BAPU SHIVAJI SAINDANE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The appeal is allowed and bail is granted to the appellants on the condition of furnishing the prescribed sureties.

Summary

The appellants, Bapu Shivaji Saindane and Amol, were taken into custody on 18 July 2026 for failing to appear before the trial court in a case registered under multiple IPC offences and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Their application for bail enlargement was rejected by the Special Judge, Ahmednagar, prompting this appeal. The counsel for the appellants offered an undertaking, on instruction, to ensure the prosecution’s and informant’s concerns were addressed. The High Court examined whether the undertaking sufficed to mitigate the risk of further non‑appearance and whether bail could be granted despite the earlier refusal. Relying on the undertaking, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered the release of the appellants on bail with specified sureties, also directing the payment of fees to the appointed counsel for Respondent No. 2.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants are entitled to bail despite prior non‑appearance before the trial court
Whether the undertaking given by counsel on instruction is sufficient to satisfy the prosecution’s concerns

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 324, 326, 34, 504, 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)

Subjects

bail
non‑appearance
criminal procedure
undertaking
IPC offences
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42955
940-APEAL-707-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
940 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 707 OF 2026
1. Bapu Shivaji Saindane
2. Amol S/o Popat Musmade
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for Appellant
Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondent No. 1
Mr. J. S. Jain, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (appointed)

CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE :SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
P. C. :

1. Mentioned out of turn. Considering the urgency in the matter,

matter is taken up for hearing at the bottom of board.

2. This Appeal is for the release o the Appellants on bail by setting

aside order dated 03.08.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge,

Ahmednagar below Exhibit 20 in Special Case No. 159/2017. By this order,

Application filed by the Appellants for enlargement on bail came to be

rejected.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants makes statement that the

Appellants are taken in custody on 18.07.2026 for non-appearance before

the trial Court. On instructions, he makes statement that the Appellants

would attend each date of hearing before Trial Court unless exempted by

specific order passed by the Court. He further makes statement, on

instructions, that in case the Appellants fail to remain present during the

Page 1 of 2
940-APEAL-707-2026.odt

hearing before trial Court, it would be open for the Trial Court to keep them

in custody till conclusion of trial.

4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Respondent No.

2/Informant vehemently opposed the Appeal. It is their contention that

Appellants are granted bail, however, instead of cooperating in trial,

Appellants remain absent before trial Court and thereby delay the

proceedings.

5. The undertaking given by the Counsel for the Appellants, on

instructions, is sufficient to take care of the apprehension of the prosecution

as well as Informant. The said undertaking given on instructions is accepted

by the Court. Relying upon the said undertaking, following order is passed:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.

(ii) Appellants be released on bail in connection with Crime No.
277/2016 registered with Rahuri Police Station, District
Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 326,
324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on furnishing
PB and SB of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only)
each with one surety in the like amount.

(iii) Bail before trial Court.

(iv) Fees of appointed Counsel for Respondent No. 2 is quantified
at Rs.10,000/-.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani

Page 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…