Bombay High Court

ANKUSH RAMDEV SOMDHANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that the principle of parity applies and that bail should be granted to the applicant with conditions.

Summary

Ankush Ramdev Somdhane was arrested for the murder of Babasaheb Somdhane and charged under Sections 103(1), 61(1), 3(5), 49, 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant participated in a conspiracy, citing multiple phone calls with the assailants and a prior enmity with the deceased, while the defence argued that the FIR did not name the applicant and no incriminating material linked him to the crime. The court examined whether the principle of parity with a previously released co‑accused (Accused No.6) applied and whether the phone‑call records constituted sufficient evidence to deny bail. After considering the submissions, the judge held that parity could be applied and that the applicant’s continued detention was not justified. Consequently, bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including a surety bond and restrictions on movement and communication. The criminal application filed by the informant was also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the applicant despite allegations of conspiracy and prior enmity.
Whether the principle of parity with a previously released co‑accused is applicable.
Whether the phone‑call records and alleged motive constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Whether the omission of the applicant’s name in the FIR affects the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 4/25
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 118(1), 3(5), 49, 54, 61(1)

Subjects

bail
murder
conspiracy
parity
phone records
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Arms Act
criminal procedure
enmity

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38736
1 964-BA.1522-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1522 OF 2026

ANKUSH RAMDEV SOMDHANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3420 OF 2026
IN BA/1522/2026
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. More P. P.
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. K. K. Naik.
…

CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
Dated : August 25, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Heard both sides.

2. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with

Crime No.488/2025, registered with Kadim Jalna Police

Station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under

Sections 103(1), 61(1), 3(5), 49, 54 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

3. A report is lodged by a friend of the deceased Babasaheb

Somdhane that Babasaheb was prohibited to enter Jalna

district in pursuance of the orders passed by the Criminal Court

and he was staying at Konewadi Tq. Chhatrapati
2 964-BA.1522-26.odt

Sambhajinagar. One Krishna Somdhane wanted to take

revenge of Babashaeb. On 20.11.2025 after attending the

Court matter at Jalna, when Babasaheb was returning by a car,

driven by informant, he was attacked by four persons, armed

with the weapons. He was brutally assaulted to death and the

assailants fled away.

4. The applicant is arrested on 03.12.2025 in pursuance of

above offence. The charge-sheet is filed on 17.02.2026. In this

backdrop, learned counsel Mr. More submits that the

applicant’s name and the role is not spelt out in the first

information report. No incriminating material is collected to

indicate any conspiracy to kill Babasaheb, of which applicant

was a party. The applicant is falsely implicated due to

suspicion. Except calls received after the incident in question

from three of the assailants to the applicant is not inculpatory.

There was no motive for applicant to take drastic step against

Babasaheb.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. would submit that the applicant and

accused No. 5 Ankush were keeping watch on the movement of

Babasaheb on the fateful day. The applicant was party to the

plan and he also had grudge against Babasaheb. He was
3 964-BA.1522-26.odt

constantly in touch with other accused by using Baliram’s

mobile. The statement of Rajendra, Devidas and Amrut would

indicate interest and involvement of the applicant. There are

three antecedents against the applicant. The learned APP

submits that the bail granted to original accused No.6 Subhash

Somdhane by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 cannot

be held as parity with the present applicant. He submits that

the distinguishing factor between the present applicant and the

original accused No.6 is that there was only one single call

between accused No.6 and the assailants after the incidents.

However, as far as present applicant is concerned, there were

twelve calls between the applicant and the assailants

throughout the day and the phone calls stopped only after the

offence was committed. This is a serious distinguishing factor

which the Court should take into consideration. Apart from

that, he argues that there was previous enmity between the

deceased and the present applicant. He prays for rejection of

the bail application. I have also assured the learned advocate

appearing on behalf of the original complainant. He argues

that the law of parity will not apply to the present applicant

with original accused No.6. While distinguishing the role and

the involvement of the present applicant and accused No.6

who is released on bail by this Court he submits that there was
4 964-BA.1522-26.odt

no enmity between accused No.6 and the deceased while the

record shows that there was previous enmity between the

present applicant and the deceased and there are cases

registered against the present applicant by the deceased. He

also tried to distinguish the role of the present applicant on the

basis of the phone calls made between the present applicant

and the assailants. He submits that as far as released accused

No.6 is concerned, one single call was received from one single

assailant after the incident had taken place, however as far as

present applicant is concerned the present applicant had

received not less than twelve calls from three different

assailants and those calls have only stopped after the incident

has taken place. He, therefore, submits that the applicant was

instrumental in keeping watch on the deceased on the fateful

day and then to provide the location of the deceased to the

assailants. If this role would not have been performed then

there was every possibility that the alleged incident would not

have taken place. He also submits that the presence of the

applicant at the time of conspiracy meeting which was held on

19.11.2025 also requires to be taken into due consideration

while deciding his bail application. He prays for rejection of

the application.
5 964-BA.1522-26.odt

6. Criminal Application filed by the informant to assist the

learned A.P.P. is allowed. Learned counsel for the informant has

adopted the submissions advanced by the learned A.P.P.

7. The first information report does not spell out name and

any role of the applicant. But it indicates rivalry between

deceased Babasaheb and Krishna Somdhane. Babasaheb was

prohibited from entering Jalna district in pursuance of the

Court orders. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are the assailants, who are

attributed overt act on the fateful day. They were armed with

weapons and the death was due to the injuries inflicted by

them. It is nobodies case that applicant was inside the car and

monitoring the incident.

8. I have gone through supplementary statement of the

informant, wherein role attributed to the applicant is surfaced

for the first time. Considering the previous rivalry, the

applicant and the co-accused hatched the plan to eliminate

Babasaheb and Babasaheb was being followed and watched by

them. A call record in between Baliram and applicant is tried

to be pitted against the applicant so as to show his

involvement. The applicant’s presence near spot of the incident

is not seen. A call made cannot be said to be incriminating.
6 964-BA.1522-26.odt

9. It is tried to be contended that applicant was using

mobile phone of Baliram and was in touch with other co-

accused. It is not corroborated by any material. It would be

matter of trial to examine the coordination amongst the

applicant and co-accused. I have gone through statement of

Rajendra, Devidas and Amrut. It is also necessary to consider

the submissions canvassed by learned APP as well as the

learned advocate appearing for the original informant. The

submissions as far as no enmity between the released accused

No.6 and the deceased is incorrect for the reason that the

prosecution papers in the charge-sheet demonstrates that there

were also cases registered against the said accused No.6 by the

deceased. Especially Crime No.476 of 2024 registered with

Taluka Jalna Police Station dated 25.07.2024, in which, the

released accused No.6 is being shown as accused No.6 for

offence punishable mainly under Section 118(1) of B.N.S.

along with other offences and name of the informant in the

said FIR is deceased Babasaheb Somdhane. Secondly, the

submission pertaining to difference in the number of calls

received from the assailants also does not make material

difference as to whether single call was received or multiple

calls were received, that does not placed the present applicant

on a higher pedestal compared to the role assigned to original
7 964-BA.1522-26.odt

accused No.6. Thus, comparing the role of the present

applicant along with released accused No.6, I am satisfied that

the law of parity can be applied.

10. There are two criminal cases pitted against the applicant.

A stringent condition can be imposed. The applicant is behind

bars since 03.12.2025. He deserves to be released on bail.

11. The Bail Application is allowed.

12. The applicant ANKUSH RAMDEV SOMDHANE shall be

released on bail in connection with Crime No.488/2025,

registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station, District Jalna, for

the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(1), 3(5),

49, 54 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section

4/25 of the Arms Act, on following conditions :

(a) The applicant shall furnish P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/-

(Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like

amount.

(b) The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution

evidence or contact with the prosecution witnesses.

address to the investigating officer.
8 964-BA.1522-26.odt

(d) The applicant shall not enter village Ahankar

Deulgaon Tq. & Dist. Jalna till conclusion of the trial.

(e) The applicant shall surrender his Aadhar Card and

PAN card to the investigating officer.

(d) The applicants shall drop a Google pin location from

his mobile phone to the IO concerned so as to show his

whereabouts everyday.

(e) The applicant shall co-operate for expeditious disposal

of the trial.

13. Criminal Application to assist learned APP is disposed of.

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. )

...

vmk/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…