Bombay High Court
CHETAN DADAJI PAWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The appellate court held that, in the absence of direct evidence linking the appellant to the murder and given his clean antecedent record, bail could be granted despite the gravity of the charges.
Summary
The appellant, Chetan Dadaji Pawar, appealed against the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting his bail application in a murder case under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The incident involved the alleged strangulation of the deceased on 5-6 October 2020, with the appellant accused alongside co‑accused. The appellant argued that the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence and that he had no prior criminal record, while the State contended that the seriousness of the offence warranted denial of bail. The High Court examined the material, found no direct motive attributable to the appellant and noted the lack of antecedents, concluding that bail could be granted on reasonable conditions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower court’s order was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail with a bond of Rs.25,000 and reporting requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a murder and atrocity case pending trial
- Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the bail application on the ground of seriousness of the offence
- Whether the appellate court can set aside the bail rejection at this stage of the proceedings
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34
- Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(5)
Subjects
- murder
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- criminal procedure
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
18-apeal-st-23115-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 718 OF 2026
Chetan Dadaji Pawar …Appellant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents.
Mr. M.A. Manav (through VC) a/w Mr. Sachinkumar Rajepandhare,
Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Mayur Sonavane, APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms. Deepali Bagla, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 28.09.2026.
PRAMOD P.C. :
SANTOSH
LAKARE
Digitally signed by
PRAMOD
SANTOSH LAKARE
1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 23.06.2021
Date: 2026.09.28
17:41:46 +0530
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District Nashik
below Exhibit-9,11 and 21 in Special Atrocities Case No.28 of
2020.
2. By the order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has rejected the application filed by the appellant for bail
who is in custody in C.R. No. 97 of 2020 registered at Wadner
Khakurdi Police Station, Nashik for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Pramod S. Lakare 1/3
18-apeal-st-23115-25.odt
3. The incident took place in the intervening night of 5.10.2020
and 06.10.2020. It is alleged that the present appellant along with
other co-accused on account of previous enmity assaulted the
deceased and committed his murder by strangulating him.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case
is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the
appellant is in jail for 5 years and 11 months. It is further
submitted that the motive for the alleged offence is attributed to
the co-accused Umesh Patil.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State and
the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the appellant
is involved in serious crime of murder. It is submitted that the
evidence of the prosecution is over and the trial is at the stage of
recording the statement of accused. It is submitted that the
present appeal, therefore, may not be entertained at this stage.
7. The fact that the appellant is in jail for 5 years and 11
months is not disputed. I have perused the material on record. The
motive for the alleged crime is not attributed to the present
appellant. There are no other criminal antecedents against the
present appellant. Considering the overall facts and
Pramod S. Lakare 2/3
18-apeal-st-23115-25.odt
circumstances, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail on
certain conditions. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge to the extent of rejecting the bail
application of the present appellant is hereby set aside.
(iii) The appellant be released on bail in C.R. No. 97 of 2020
registered at Wadner Khakurdi Police Station, Nashik for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of
the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(iv) The appellant shall provide his contact number and
residential address to the concerned police station.
(v) The appellant shall attend the concerned police station
once in a month, i.e., on first Saturday between 11.00 am to
2.00 pm till conclusion of trial.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Pramod S. Lakare 3/3
Checking your session…