Bombay High Court
RAHUL ASHOK SHELAKEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is released on bail with conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Rahul Ashok Shelake, was arrested as Accused No.4 in a murder case (Crime No.65 of 2025) involving alleged conspiracy with Accused No.1, and charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant contended that he had no role in the crime, that the prosecution’s case rested solely on circumstantial evidence, and that the motive lay with Accused No.1, who along with other co‑accused had obtained default bail. The State argued that sufficient incriminating material linked the appellant to the murder and that bail should be denied given the seriousness of the offence. The High Court examined the chargesheet, noted the absence of any prior criminal antecedents for the appellant, and considered the overall facts and circumstances. Finding the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted bail subject to monetary and reporting conditions. The appellant was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one or two sureties and to report monthly to the police station until trial concludes.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14‑A of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in view of the circumstantial evidence and the nature of the alleged murder.
- Whether the appellant’s continued detention is justified despite other co‑accused obtaining default bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 140(1), 238, 3(5)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A, 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- murder
- SC & ST Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- default bail
- conspiracy
- appeal
Judgment
1 19-APEAL 834-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.834 OF 2026
Rahul Ashok Shelake … Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
-----
Mr. Akshay Bankapur for the Appellant.
Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Sonam Pandey, appointed advocate for Respondent No.2.
API Shantaram Mahajan, Mhasrul PS, Nashik City is present.
-----
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 09TH OCTOBER 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
the order dated 24th April 2026 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nashik below Exhibit 27 in Special Atrocity Case No.167 of 2025.
2. By the impugned order, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has
rejected the application for regular bail filed by the present Appellant,
who came to be arrested in Crime No.65 of 2025 registered at Mhasrul
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 140(1), 103(1),
238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (for short “SC & ST Act”).
3. The Appellant is Accused No.4 in the aforesaid crime. According to
the prosecution, the deceased and the wife of Accused No.1 were in
Mugdha 1 of 3
2 19-APEAL 834-26.doc
relationship. It is alleged that Accused No.1 along with other accused
including the present Appellant, who is the friend of Accused No.1 thus
entered into conspiracy and committed the murder of the deceased.
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 submits that the Appellant has
nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the case is based
on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the motive for the alleged
crime is attributed to Accused No.1. It is further submitted that Accused
No.1 and other co-accused came to be released on default bail. It is
submitted that the Appellant is in jail since 17 th March 2025 and the trial
is not likely to be concluded in near future as it is at the stage of framing
of charge.
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 the serious crime of murder. It is submitted that there are
enough incriminating material against the appellant to connect him with
the alleged crime. It is submitted that the Appellant can not seek parity as
Accused No.1 and other co-accused are released on default bail. It is
submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Appellant may not be
released on bail.
7. I have perused the chargesheet. The case is based on circumstantial
evidence. Admittedly, the motive for alleged crime is attributed to Accused
Mugdha 2 of 3
3 19-APEAL 834-26.doc
No.1. It is not disputed that there are no other criminal antecedents
against the present Appellant. 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 Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is set aside.
iii. The Appellant be released on bail in Crime No.65 of
2025 registered at Mhasrul Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 140(1), 103(1),
238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on furnishing
P.R Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
iv. The Appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
v. The Appellant shall attend the concerned police station
once in a month, i.e., on first Saturday between 11.00
a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.
8. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
Mugdha 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.