Bombay High Court
RAJESH SHAMLAL SALUNKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the applicant, holding that the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence to justify continued detention.
Summary
The applicant, Rajesh Shamlal Salunke, was charged with murder, conspiracy, and offences under the IPC, Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act and MCOCA, alleged to have facilitated a contract killing by communicating with co‑accused and providing the scooter used in the crime. The prosecution relied on call records, CCTV footage and a witness statement to link him to the conspiracy, while the defence argued that the calls merely show ordinary communication, no document placed him at the scene, and the trial had stalled for over five years. The court noted that the evidence did not conclusively establish the applicant’s participation in the murder or the use of his scooter, and highlighted the undue delay in the proceedings. Considering the lack of substantive proof and the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention, the court granted regular bail with conditions. The order also rejected the intervenor’s request for a stay and disposed of the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite charges under IPC and MCOCA for alleged conspiracy and contract killing
- Whether the call records, CCTV footage and witness statements constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail
- Whether the delay of more than five years in trial warrants grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3(25)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 201, 212, 302, 34
- Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1)(3)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- contract killing
- MCOCA
- IPC
- trial delay
- organized crime
- criminal procedure
Judgment
1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3485 OF 2023
Rajesh Shamlal Salunke ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Aabad H. Ponda, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Karan Jain and Mr.
Rushikesh S. Kale, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.
Ms. Aruna Pail i/b. Mr. Mohan Rao along with Ms. Sulabha Rane and Ms.
Sakshi Baadkar and Mr. Sangram Parab, Advocate for the Intervenor.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C.:
1. By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No. 413 of 2020 registered with Bund Garden Police Station,
District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201
and 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section
3(25) of the Arms Act, Section 37(1)(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police
Act and Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short “the MCOCA”).
SHUBHADA 2. It is prosecution’s case that on 5th October 2020, the employer
SHANKAR
KADAM
of the First Informant was shot dead outside the Collector’s office, Pune by
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
the Accused No. 4. It is alleged that there was a land dispute between the
Date: 2026.02.12
18:13:16 +0530
Page 1 of 6
1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
deceased and Accused Nos. 1 to 3, and arising out of said land dispute, the
deceased was murdered by way of a killing contract. It is alleged that the
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave a contract to Accused No. 3 to kill the deceased.
Accused No. 3 allegedly hired the Applicant, a member of an organized
crime syndicate, who in turn assigned the contract to Accused No.4. It is
alleged that on the day of the incident, the Applicant was seen near the
incident spot. There were call records between the Applicant, Accused No.3
and Accused No.4 stating the whereabouts of the deceased. The Activa
Scooter used in the crime belongs to the Applicant.
3. It is contention of the learned senior counsel for the Applicant
that the Applicant is behind bars for more than five years. There is no
progress in the trial. The allegations against the Applicant are that there
were call records between him and Accused Nos. 3 and 4. When the
deceased left the Collector’s office, Accused No. 3 informed the Applicant
and the Applicant informed Accused No. 4, and thereafter, the deceased
was shot dead by Accused No. 4. Learned Counsel further submitted that
the Applicant and Accused No. 4 reside in the same building. There were
several calls between them, but mere exchange of calls does not suggest
that the Applicant was involved in the conspiracy as stated in the charge-
sheet. No document is produced on record to show that the Applicant was
present near the incident spot. Learned counsel further submitted that
Page 2 of 6
1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against whom strong motive is alleged, have been
released on bail. Except the instant case, no other C.R is pending against
Applicant with co-accused. To prove the provisions of MCOCA levelled
against the Applicant, trial is required. Hence, requested to allow the
application.
4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for
the intervenor that the Applicant is a member of crime syndicate run by
Accused No. 4 and he is one of the conspirators in murder of the deceased,
as he was in constant touch with Accused Nos. 3 and 4 and co-accused.
The Activa Scooter used in commission of crime belongs to the Applicant.
The call records of the day of the incident, before the murder of the
deceased, show that there were calls between the Applicant and Accused
Nos. 3 and 4 and co-accused. The CDR and CCTV footage produced on
record shows that the Applicant was present near the incident spot. The
Applicant has five antecedents. This Court had rejected the bail
applications of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and in the said order, this Court has
observed about the role of the Applicant. The Applicant was keeping watch
on the incident. The statement of the witness Sanket Yadav supports the
said fact, provisions of MCOCA are applied against the Applicant. Hence,
requested to reject the application.
Page 3 of 6
1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
5. I have heard all learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and
documents produced on record.
6. The allegations against the Applicant are mainly of conspiracy
and contract to kill the deceased was given to him by the Accused No. 3,
then the Applicant gave it to Accused No.4. It is alleged that on the date of
the incident, the Applicant was in contact with Accused Nos. 3 and 4. It is
alleged that the Activa scooter used in the said crime by Accused No. 4
belonged to the Applicant. The Applicant was present near the incident
spot at the time of incident. In my view, the statement of First Informant
and eye witnesses shows that the Accused No. 4 arrived on foot, fired at
the deceased from a pistol and ran away. It does not show that Activa
Scooter was used for commission of crime. The CDR locations provided on
record of the Applicant does not indicate that he was near the incident
spot. The Accused No. 1 and 2 against whom there are allegations of
strong motive have been released on bail. The Accused No. 3 against whom
there are allegations that he gave killing contract to the Applicant, and on
day of the incident, he was in contact with the Applicant, has been
released on bail. To prove the charges of conspiracy against the Applicant,
evidence is required. The Applicant is behind bars for more than 5 years.
There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following
order:
Page 4 of 6
1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
ORDER
(i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 413 of 2020
registered with Bund Garden Police Station, District Pune, on
executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
(iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, prosecution witnesses or
any person concerned with the case. Failure to comply with this
condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
7. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
8. Learned counsel for the intervenor submits that the intervenor
wants to challenge this order and requested to stay the order for two
weeks. As this Court has passed order on merit, hence, request is rejected.
Page 5 of 6
1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
10. In view of disposal of Bail Application, Interim Application
No.2405 of 2025 will not survive for consideration and the same is also
disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 6 of 6
Checking your session…