Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PRATHAMESH @SONYA KIRAN SALUNKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Allowed

Holding

Bail is granted to the applicant.

Summary

The High Court considered the bail application of Prathamesh @ Sonya Kiran Salunke, accused No.2 in a murder case (CR No. 679 of 2025) involving the shooting of Ketan by accused No.1. The charges were under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution argued that the applicant’s identity was not established through a Test Identification Parade and that a recovered motorcycle linked him to the crime, suggesting complicity. The defense highlighted the lack of clear motive, the applicant’s non‑identification in the FIR, and the need for a strong bail case. After weighing the evidence, the court held that the applicant could be released on bail with strict conditions, noting that his role could be examined at trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether the absence of a Test Identification Parade and the recovery of the victim's motorcycle from the applicant constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
  • Whether the applicant's alleged presence at the scene without clear identification justifies continued detention.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • identification parade
  • Arms Act
  • murder
  • complicity
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                                                                                  6 ba 3200 of 2026.odt



                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3200 OF 2026

                        Prathamesh @ Sonya Kiran Salunke
                        (Currently Lodged in Yerwada Central Prison)
                        Age – 22 years, Occupation :
                        R/o. Kiwle, Khed, Pune                                .. Applicant
                                   Versus
                        The State of Maharashtra
                        (Through Khed Police Station, Pune)                   .. Respondent

                                                    ....................
                         Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w. Mr. Priyesh More,Advocate for Applicant.
                         Ms. Sangeeta Phad, APP for the Respondent – State.
                         S. V. Gholap, Head Constable, Khed Police Station, present.
                                                        ................…


                                                       CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                                       DATE         : AUGUST 17, 2026

                        P. C.:


                        1.        Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant and

                        Ms. Phad, learned APP for the Respondent–State.


                        2.        The Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.2 in Crime No. 679 of

                        2025, registered with Khed Police Station, Pune, wherein Section

                        103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) and Sections

                        25 and 27 of the Arms, 1959 are invoked. In the present case

RAJESHRI
                        Shubham Santosh Kamble- Accused No.1 who has been seen by the
PRAKASH
AHER
Digitally signed by
                        eyewitness Gaurav, who was pillion riding along with the deceased
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
AHER                  Rajeshri Aher
Date: 2026.08.18
17:09:02 +0530

                                                                                                1 of 5
                                                            6 ba 3200 of 2026.odt


  Ketan. The record prima facie throws light on the fact that the

  deceased and Shubham-Accused No.1 were both friends and known to

  each other.


  3.        On the fateful day of the incident i.e. 27 th November, 2025, both

  of them crossed each other on their respective motorcycles, when the

  Accused No.1 called out Ketan to stop, they both exchanged

  pleasantries after greeting each other, but after which suddenly, out of

  the blue, Accused No.1 pulled out a country made pistol and shot

  Ketan at point-blank range fatally. Immediately thereafter the accused

  persons left the place on his motorcycle. The first informant is the wife

  of the deceased victim–Ketan, who filed the First Information Report

  (FIR) on 27th November, 2025, and her statement is appended at Page

  23/D. There is an improvement made by her in her own statement

  while recording a supplementary 5 days later, on 1 st December, 2025,

  appended at page 83. Admittedly, in the FIR, the first informant has

  stated that after she gained knowledge about the incident on

  1st December, 2025, whereafter she and parents all came over and took

  Ketan to the hospital. Insofar as role of the present Applicant

  Prathamesh is concerned, the eyewitness Gaurav, who was pillion

  riding along with Ketan, has recorded his statement, appended at Page

  56, wherein he has stated that Accused No.2 was along with two other

  friends who have not been identified. The Applicant has been arrested
Rajeshri Aher

                                                                          2 of 5
                                                         6 ba 3200 of 2026.odt


  on the statement of the Accused No.1. In the aforesaid backdrop, the

  motive of the crime is prima facie absent. Though the learned

  Advocate for the Applicant submits that the FIR itself throws light on

  the fact that the wife of the deceased victim had an affair with Accused

  No.1 prior to her marriage with the deceased. That prima facie may

  not appear to be correct because in the FIR the first informant has

  stated that Accused No.1 and her husband were very good friends, and

  in an incident involving another friend of theirs, the first informant

  had, infact, called upon Accused No.1 to intervene on their behalf. The

  motive of the crime, therefore, does not appear to be clear and, more

  importantly, the role attributed to Accused No. 2, the Applicant before

  me, entitles the Applicant to make out a strong case for grant of bail.

  In view thereof, the Applicant is granted bail.


  4.        Ms. Phad, learned APP, has raised a very strong objection and

  would submit that, insofar as the identity of the Applicant is

  concerned, merely because Test Identification Parade (TI Parade) has

  not been held, it cannot be ruled out that Accused No.1 has named

  him and, therefore, his role is complicit in the crime and equivalent to

  that of the Accused No.1, who had fired the gunshot. She would also

  submit that the Splendor bike of the deceased Ketan, was also

  recovered from the Applicant, and therefore, it makes out a strong

  case for the complicity of the Applicant in the present crime.
Rajeshri Aher

                                                                       3 of 5
                                                            6 ba 3200 of 2026.odt




  5.        I have considered the strong opposition raised by Ms. Phad.

  However, in view of the statement given by the first informant,

  appended at Page 23/A to 23/E, and insofar as the relationship of the

  accused persons is concerned, the same cannot be seen to indict the

  Applicant before me in the crime, since he has not been identified.

  Nevertheless, the same can be undoubtedly looked into by the

  prosecution at the time of trial.


  6.        Bail Application is allowed on the following terms:-



        (i)       Applicant is directed to be immediately released from

        prison in connection with C.R. No. 679 of 2025;

        (ii)      Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing

        P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with

        one surety of the like amount;

        (iii)     Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at Khed

        Police Station, Pune, once every month on the first Monday

        between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.;

        (iv)      Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and

        attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted

        and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so it

        will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
Rajeshri Aher

                                                                          4 of 5
                                                          6 ba 3200 of 2026.odt


        (v)      Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

        without prior permission of the Trial Court;

        (vi)     Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or

        tamper with the evidence in any manner;

        (vii)    Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of

        his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of

        residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as

        applicable; and

        (viii)   Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation

        of bail granted to the Applicant.


  7.        Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above

  terms.




                                            [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]




Rajeshri Aher

                                                                        5 of 5


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.