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
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
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
Checking your session…