ROHIT RAJAN SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:20803-DB


                                                       1                     916.2026APPLN.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
                        925 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 916 OF 2026
                                   IN APEAL/164/2026
                                    ROHIT RAJAN SHINDE
                                          VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 ...
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. N.S Ghanekar
              APP for Respondent/State : Mrs.R.P. Gaur
                                            ...
                                  CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                          VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
                                  DATED : 30th APRIL, 2026.
              ORDER :

                          The applicant is convicted by the learned Additional
              Sessions Judge, Aurangabad under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
              Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, vide judgment and
              order dated 10.12.2025, in Sessions Case No.11/2022. By this
              application, the applicant seeks bail during pendency of the appeal.


              2.          The applicant, child in conflict with law, was charged for
              commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC on the
              allegation of having committed murder of his father by assaulting him
              with dumbbell and slitting his neck and nerves of both wrists by knife.


              3.          Learned Advocate for the applicant assails the conviction
              on the ground that the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the
              evidence. The disclosure memorandum and recovery evidence is not
              proved. According to him, the spot panchanama and the evidence of
              CCTV footage etc., does not corroborate with the prosecution evidence.
              The prosecution has failed to prove motive. Extra-judicial confession is
              wrongly relied upon by the trial Court, though all the witnesses to
                                        2                         916.2026APPLN.odt


whom the alleged extra judicial confession is given have not supported
the prosecution case. Applicant has completed 21 years of age and he is
pursuing law course. He submitted that since 18.10.2021, the applicant
is in custody, and, taking into consideration the period of long
incarceration, he may be released on bail.


4.            Per-contra,   learned   A.P.P.   strenuously   supported   the
judgment and order of conviction. By relying on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), she
submitted that even the statement given under Section 162(1) of
Criminal Procedure Code to the Investigating Officer can be used to
contradict the testimony of witness and part of proved contradiction
can be relied upon, either by the accused or prosecution. She submitted
that chain of circumstances established by prosecution proves the guilt
of the applicant, and therefore, no case is made out by the applicant to
grant bail.


5.            We have heard learned Advocate for the applicant and
learned A.P.P. With their able assistance, we have perused the record.


6.            The trial Court has relied upon the following circumstances
while convicting the applicant :-


     (a) Extra Judicial Confession of the CCL.
     (b) Disclosure Statement of CCL and seizure of weapon of
          offence, blood stained clothes of CCL, preparation of its
          panchanamas.
     (c) Spot panchanama and seizure of articles from Spot,
          clothes of deceased and his family members and their
                                      3                        916.2026APPLN.odt


           C.A. report.
     (d) Corroborative Evidence in the form of witnesses, CCTV
           footage, FSL and chemical Analysis Report, Digital
           Evidence
     (e) Motive.
     (f)   Due Investigation.


7.           On perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned
judgment of conviction, we are of the prima facie view that the
prosecution has proved the complete chain of circumstances which
points to the guilt of the applicant. Though the prosecution witnesses
i.e. mother, sister and grand-father of the applicant have not supported
the prosecution case, on the point of extra-judicial confession, the
relevant part of the extra-judicial confession was proved through
Investigating Officer.


             Learned Advocate for the applicant is justified in arguing
that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it
cannot be relied upon as a substantive piece of evidence, it is a settled
legal position that the same can be treated as a corroborative piece of
evidence and since it supports the prosecution case, the same can be
taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence. At the
instance of the applicant, the weapon used in the offence i.e. dumbbell
and knife are seized. Human blood was found on the weapons used in
the crime. Human blood was also found on the clothes of the applicant.
The motive alleged by the prosecution is that the applicant was
disturbed due to insistence on the part of his father that he should
study. Relationship between the applicant and his father was strained.
Prosecution has examined witnesses PW-7, PW-13 and Police witnesses
                                              4                     916.2026APPLN.odt


      PW-21, PW-30, PW-31 and examiner of documents PW-32 to prove the
      motive.


      8.           On careful appreciation of the prosecution evidence and
      after perusing the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the impugned
      judgment, we are of the prima facie view that there is sufficient
      material on record to sustain the conviction of the applicant. The
      applicant is, therefore, not entitled for bail.


      9.           Since the applicant is convicted for life, in our opinion,
      incarceration of approximately five years, cannot be termed as long
      incarceration. The application is, therefore, rejected.



      (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.)                   (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI,J.)


sga