SHUBHAM DATTATRYA GONDKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:4776

                                             1                      76.BA-2313-2025.doc




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2313 OF 2025
                           SHUBHAM DATTATRYA GONDKAR
                                      VERSUS
                            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                        WITH
                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4815 OF 2025
                                   IN BA/2313/2025
                                            …
                   Advocate for Applicant : Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal
                                            i/by Mr. Yash Anil Jadhav

                         APP for Respondents/State : Mrs. P. J. Bharad

               Advocate for the Applicant in Cri. Appln. : Mr. V.S. Kadam
                                         …

                                         CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                                           DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY 2026

              PER COURT :
              1.         Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, the
              learned Counsel for assisting the prosecution and the learned APP for
              the State.

              2.         The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking regular
              bail in connection with Crime No.256/2025 registered with Shirdi
              Police Station, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar for the offences
              punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
              2023.

              3.         The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submits that
                              2                       76.BA-2313-2025.doc




initially, upon the death of the deceased father, Dattatrya, an
accidental death was registered on 06.03.2025. The statements of the
Applicant, as well as those of the mother and sister of the Applicant,
were also recorded. The Applicant was called to the police station for
interrogation, and the FIR came to be registered only on suspicion
that the Applicant had committed the murder of the deceased. The
learned Counsel for the Applicant further submits that a perusal of
the statements of the mother and sister of the Applicant would show
that the initial version recorded by the prosecution was that the
deceased had inflicted injuries upon himself by banging his head
against the wall of the room. It is further stated by the mother of the
Applicant that she had called upon the neighbours to break open the
door, as the door was latched from inside. The learned Senior
Counsel further submits that the deceased was suffering from
psychiatric disorder and had previously undergone treatment for de-
addiction and psychiatric illness.    It could be inferred that the
deceased was also alcoholic. It is further submitted that the deceased
had suffered an accident on 03.03.2025, as can be seen from the
statement of one Mohan Sakhne, Manager of the Hotel, who stated
that the deceased Dattatrya had met with an accident on 03.03.2025
and had suffered some abrasions, and therefore was required to be
taken to a doctor who administered an injection and prescribed some
tablets. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the injury sustained
by the deceased, as reflected in the postmortem report, could be the
result of such accident, as informed by the witness Mohan. It is
further submitted that self-incriminating evidence is not an
                               3                      76.BA-2313-2025.doc




admissible piece of evidence, and the statement of the Applicant
recorded by the police while in custody is not admissible, being hit by
Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

4.       It is further submitted by the Senior Counsel that the
Applicant has approached this Court earlier by filing ABA
No.1208/2025. This Court vide its order dated 18.08.2025 has
allowed the Applicant to again approach this Court after a period of
three months without observing anything on merits. The Applicant
thereafter approached the learned Sessions Court seeking bail only
on medical grounds,       as   the Applicant    was suffering          from
hematemesis disease. While the said application on medical grounds
was pending, and while the Applicant was in jail, he engaged another
Counsel who filed the present application for regular bail before this
Court. However, since the Applicant was in jail, he was not aware of
the simultaneous proceedings being pursued on his behalf by the
lawyers engaged by him. Upon coming to know about the present
application, the application before the learned Sessions Court at
Rahata, filed only on medical grounds, came to be withdrawn. The
Applicant is behind bars since 10.03.2025. Looking to the nature of
evidence collected against him by the prosecution and the settled law
that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof, there is hardly
any material to bring home the guilt of the present Applicant. The
incarceration of the Applicant cannot be treated as a pre-trial
punishment, and as such, the Applicant may be released on bail. He
further submits that the Applicant is ready to abide by any conditions
                               4                      76.BA-2313-2025.doc




that may be imposed by this Court and would not flee away from the
ends of justice.

5.        As against this, the learned APP as well as the learned
assisting Counsel strongly oppose the present application on the
ground that the Applicant had committed a cold-blooded murder of
his own father, as can be gathered from the evidence collected by the
prosecution. It is submitted that there are serious flaws in the initial
statements of the mother and sister of the Applicant, who had
attempted to shield him. However, the subsequent statements of the
witnesses show that it was the Applicant who committed the murder
of the deceased. The Applicant, while in custody, recorded a
memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, thereby leading
to the discovery of the plastic pipe which was allegedly used to inflict
injuries upon the deceased Dattatrya. The witnesses, namely Vimal
Rajide, Suman, and Mangal Gavli, all sisters of the deceased
Dattatrya, have specifically stated about the suspicious circumstances
under which the deceased Dattatrya was killed by the Applicant with
the assistance of his mother and sister.
.         The learned Assisting Counsel Mr. V.S. Kadam further
submits that the mother of the deceased, namely Sindhu, had
submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police on
13.03.2025, thereby seeking a fair investigation and also requesting
that other family members of the Applicant be added as accused in
the present crime. It is further submitted that the Applicant has
suppressed the fact that he had already approached this Court and
                                  5                     76.BA-2313-2025.doc




had simultaneously pursued an application before the Sessions Court
for bail on medical grounds. The conduct of the Applicant has been
severely deprecated by the learned Sessions Court, which expressed
an apprehension that the Applicant has not approached the Court
with clean hands. It is further submitted that if the Applicant is
released on bail, may again flee away from the ends of justice and
may not be available for trial.

6.       The learned APP further submits that the postmortem
report shows multiple contused lacerated wounds which cannot be
the result of self-inflicted injuries, as submitted by the Counsel for the
Applicant and in the initial statement of the mother of the Applicant.
The   weapon     recovered    from    the   Applicant   pursuant        to    a
memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was referred to
the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem. The Medical
Officer of Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences submitted a report on
21.03.2025 stating that the injuries noted in column no. 17 of the
postmortem report are likely to have been caused by the weapon,
i.e., the plastic pipe recovered at the instance of the present
Applicant. She therefore submits that there is ample evidence to
bring home the guilt of the Applicant. The offence is punishable with
life imprisonment. The Applicant has committed the murder of his
father, and hence, taking into consideration the evidence collected by
the prosecution, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the present
Applicant.

7.       I have gone through the charge-sheet made available by the
                              6                       76.BA-2313-2025.doc




learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant. The perusal of the charge-
sheet shows that initially an accidental death was registered in
respect of the deceased on 06.03.2025. The statement of the mother
of the Applicant was recorded on 08.03.2025. A perusal of the
statements of Sanjivni (mother), and witnesses Nilesh, Ravishankar,
Shivaji, and Vijay (neighbors) indicates that even before registration
of the FIR, they had categorically stated that the wife of the
deceased, Sanjivni, had seen the deceased inflicting injuries upon
himself after latching the bedroom door from inside. She therefore
sought help from the Applicant and other neighbors, who then broke
open the lock and brought the deceased out. Further investigation
was carried out, and after interrogation of the Applicant, the FIR
came to be registered. A perusal of the aforesaid statements shows
certain discrepancies between those recorded on 08.03.2025 and
those recorded on 12.03.2025, wherein Sanjivni later stated that she
subsequently came to know that Shubham had inflicted the injuries
on the deceased, resulting in the death of Dattatrya. Suspicion
however, grave cannot replace the proof required to form basis of
conviction. The observations made are only with a purpose to decide
the application, the same may not influence the trial Court. These
discrepancies, of course, will be evaluated during the trial. However,
taking into consideration the discrepancies in the statements and the
period of incarceration, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour
of the Applicant and release him on bail, as it is a settled law that
bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The apprehensions expressed
by the learned APP as well as the learned Assisting Counsel can be
                               7                      76.BA-2313-2025.doc




allayed by imposing suitable conditions upon the Applicant.          Hence
the following order :
                                   ORDER
(a)    The Bail Application is allowed.

(b)    The Applicant - Shubham Dattatrya Gondkar be released on
bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand)
with two solvent sureties in the like amount, in connection with
Crime No.256/2025 registered with Shirdi Police Station, Tq. Rahata,
District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Section
103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the following
conditions :
      (i) The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
      Sessions Court except for medical treatment, for which the
      Applicant shall seek permission from the trial Court, after
      giving an opportunity to the prosecution.

      (ii) The Applicant shall attend each and every date of the
      trial Court without fail unless exempted by the trial Court on
      emergent consideration.

      (iii) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
      witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence,
      in any manner.

      (iv) The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar and PAN Card to
      the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone
      numbers of himself and two of the near relatives.

      (v) A single incident of the Applicant violating the conditions
      may entitle the Prosecution to seek cancellation of bail of the
      Applicant.
                                8                       76.BA-2313-2025.doc




(c)        The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

(d)        The application for assisting the Prosecution is disposed of.



                                             MEHROZ K. PATHAN
                                                JUDGE




NAJEEB..