SACHIN PRAKASHRAO ANDUREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                      Gokhale                        1 of 29                ia-2142-26 (bail order)


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2142 OF 2026
                                                    IN
                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 733 OF 2024

                     Sachin Prakashrao Andure                            ..Applicant
                           Versus
                     The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                     ..Respondents
                                                __________
                     Mr. Niteen Pradhan a/w. Shubhada Khot, Siddh Vidya, Danish
                     Patel, Virendra Ichalkaranjikar, Sachin Kanse i/b. Jyoti Ghorpade
                     for Applicant.

                     Mr. Amit Singh a/w. Ms. Saba Shaikh, Bhushan Bhadgale, Priyasha
                     Pawar, Janhavi Jadhav and Ashlesha Suryawanshi i/b. Omkar
                     Nevgi for Intervenor.

                     Mr. Amit Munde, SPP a/w. Jai Vohra, Shantanu Nakashe for
                     CBI/Respondent No.2.

                     Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for State/Respondent.
                                                 __________

                                         CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                 RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

                                         RESERVED ON   : 11 AUGUST 2026
                                         PRONOUNCED ON : 18 AUGUST 2026

                     PC :

                     1.           This is an application preferred by the Applicant for his

                     release on bail during pendency and final disposal of Criminal

                     Appeal No.733 of 2024.
        Digitally
        signed by
        VINOD
VINOD   BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
        2026.08.18
        12:59:46
        +0530
                             2 of 29                 ia-2142-26 (bail order)


2.        Heard Mr. Niteen Pradhan, learned counsel for the

Applicant, Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel for the Intervenor, Mr.

Amit Munde, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI-

Respondent No.2 and Ms. Gauri Rao, learned APP for the State-

Respondent.


3.        The Applicant was the original Accused No.2 in Sessions

Case No.706 of 2016 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Pune. The learned Judge vide the Judgment and order dated

10.05.2024 convicted the present Applicant and the original

Accused No.3 Sharad Bhausaheb Kalaskar for commission of the

offences punishable U/s.302 r/w. 34 of the IPC and U/s.3(25) of

the Indian Arms Act. They were sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and

to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs each and in default they were directed

to suffer S.I. for one year. Both of them were acquitted from the

charges of commission of the offences punishable U/s.120B of the

IPC, under Sections 27(1) and 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act and

under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,

1967. The other three accused i.e. the Accused No.1 Dr.

Virendrasinh Tawde, Accused No.4 Sanjiv Punalekar and Accused
                               3 of 29                   ia-2142-26 (bail order)


No.5 Vikram Bhave were acquitted from all the charges.


4.        The Applicant challenged the said Judgment and order

in Criminal Appeal No.733 of 2024 before this Court. The Appeal

is admitted.


5.        The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:


           i)    The case involves the murder of Dr. Narendra

Dabholkar, who was a rationalist, social worker and crusader

against   superstition.   He     had     founded   the     ‘Maharashtra

Andhashradha Nirmoolan Samiti (for short ‘ANIS’). He was the

force behind the Anti Superstition Bill which was pending for

legislation in August 2013 before the Maharashtra State

Legislature. As per the prosecution case, the organisations like

Sanatan Sanstha were opposing the said bill. Ultimately, the bill

was passed by the State of Maharashtra on 24.08.2013 through an

Ordinance, after the death of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar. The

prosecution case is that the Sanatan Sanstha was having hatred

towards Dr. Narendra Dabholkar. Sanatan Sanstha was publishing

various articles in ‘Dainik Sanatan Prabhat’ against Dr. Dabholkar.
                               4 of 29                ia-2142-26 (bail order)


           ii)      On 20.08.2013, at about 7:20a.m. two persons

fired bullets on Dr. Dabholkar at Omkareshwar Bridge at Pune

within the jurisdiction of Deccan Police station. He succumbed to

his injuries. A few eye witnesses saw the incident. The police were

informed. Dr. Dabholkar was taken to the hospital. Two live

cartridges and two empty cartridges were found at the spot. In

Sassoon Hospital, two empty bullets were taken out from the body

of Dr. Dabholkar.


           iii)     C.R.No.154 of 2013 was registered at Deccan

Police station against unknown persons for the offences U/s.302

r/w.34 of the IPC and U/s.3(25) of the Arms Act. Initially, it was

investigated by the Deccan Police station. The investigation was

taken over by the Crime Branch-1, Pune city. A Public Interest

Litigation was filed before this Court and the investigation was

handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). From

02.06.2014, CBI conducted the investigation.


           iv)      The prosecution case is that the Accused No.1 Dr.

Tawde was the co-ordinator of Sanatan Sanstha in Kolhapur. It is a
                             5 of 29                ia-2142-26 (bail order)


sister organization of Hindu Janjagruti Samiti (for short ‘HJS’).

The said organization started its activity in Kolhapur. Dr. Tawde

developed enmity with Dr. Dabholkar. His involvement in the

murder of Dr. Dabholkar was revealed. He was arrested on

10.06.2016. The Applicant and the co-accused Sharad Kalaskar

were associated with Sanatan Sanstha and they were arrested by

the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) Maharashtra, Mumbai in C.R.No.11

of 2018 registered with Kalachowky police station, Mumbai. The

roles played by the Applicant and the co-accused Kalaskar in

connection with the murder of Dr. Dabholkar were revealed. The

Applicant was arrested on 18.08.2018 and the Accused Sharad

Kalaskar was arrested on 03.09.2018. The involvement of the

other accused who faced the trial was revealed subsequently and

all the accused mentioned herein above faced the trial.


6.        During trial, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses

including two eye witnesses, one witness to whom allegedly the

Applicant made an extra judicial confession, the panchas and the

Investigating Officer.
                                 6 of 29                ia-2142-26 (bail order)


7.         At the conclusion of the trial, the Applicant and co-

accused Kalaskar were convicted and sentenced as mentioned

earlier.


SUBMISSIONS OF MR. NITEEN PRADHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL
FOR THE APPLICANT:

             i)     There is no reliable evidence against the

Applicant.    The    important     witnesses   were   deliberately       not

examined by the prosecution. The charge-sheet showed that there

were at least five more witnesses who claimed to be the eye

witnesses viz. Meera Chakale, Minanath Gaikwad, Vitthal Kamat,

Kasturi Paranjape and Shamala Gadre who were alleged witnesses

to the incident, but they were not examined and, therefore,

adverse inference is required to be drawn. Even the important

officers from the CBI and the Police who had conducted important

part of the investigation were not examined. They were WAPI

Sunita Salunke, PI Raghunath Phuge, ACP Rajendra Bhamre,

Senior Police Officer G. S. Madgulkar, CBI Dy.S.P.- D. S. Chauhan

and Shri. Meena.


             iii)   The only evidence against the Applicant was in
                              7 of 29                     ia-2142-26 (bail order)


the nature of evidence of the alleged eye witnesses PW-6 Kiran

Kamble and PW-14 Vinay Kelkar, as well as, the evidence of

Somnath    Bhagwan     Dhayade          regarding   the   Extra     Judicial

Confession. PW-6 Kiran, in his statement recorded U/s.164 of the

Cr.P.C., had denied having seen the incident. PW-14 Vinay had

stated that he was at a distance of around 500 meters from where

he had seen the incident. The Test Identification Parade (for short

‘TIP’) was not held to enable them to identify the suspects;

including the Applicant. Admittedly, the photographs of the

Applicant and the co-accused were shown. That vitiates the

identification. After about ten years from the incident, for the first

time, they identified the accused in the Court. This identification

hardly carries any weightage.


            iv)   Shri. Pradhan submitted that the evidence of

extra judicial confession is weak. PW-10 Dhayade was a stand

alone witness. There is no corroboration to his evidence. There is

nothing to corroborate that he was very close to the Applicant, so

that the Applicant could have confessed to his crime before this

witness. There is no corroboration on material particulars. His
                             8 of 29                 ia-2142-26 (bail order)


statement was recorded by a CBI officer after five years. Thereafter

his statement U/s.164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. Shri. Patil,

officer of the CBI who had called this witness for recording the

statement is not examined. There is a reference to one Devdikar to

whom this witness had given information about the Extra Judicial

Confession made by the Applicant. But he was not examined. It is

not safe to rely on his evidence. There are major omissions from

his evidence which are proved through the evidence of the

Investigating Officer PW-20 Subhash Singh.


           v)    Shri. Pradhan further submitted that the evidence

shows that the two suspects namely Khandelwal and Nagori were

arrested on 20.08.2013 at 4:30p.m. at Mumbra. Two firearms and

live cartridges were seized from them. Those firearms were sent to

the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL’). The bullets taken

out from the dead body of Dr. Dabholkar were also sent for

analysis to FSL. The FSL report shows that the bullets found at the

spot and the bullets found in the dead body matched with the

firearms sent to FSL. The investigating agency has surprisingly

filed a closure report in favour of Khandelwal and Nagori and
                             9 of 29                 ia-2142-26 (bail order)


there is no further link established with the FSL report, which goes

directly against the prosecution theory. Both of them were let off

by filing a report U/s.169 of the Cr.P.C. The FSL report is produced

on record at Exhibit-495. There is no explanation coming forth

from the prosecution in that behalf.


8.        Shri. Pradhan relied on the order passed by a Division

Bench of this Court granting bail to the co-accused Kalaskar during

pendency of his appeal. The said order was passed by another

Division Bench of this Court in Interim Application No.312 of 2025

in Criminal Appeal No.641 of 2024 preferred by the co-accused

Sharad Kalaskar. Vide the order dated 29.04.2026 the Division

Bench granted bail pending Appeal to the Applicant’s co-accused

Sharad Kalaskar. Shri. Pradhan submitted that the principles of

parity squarely apply to the Applicant’s case. The additional

circumstance against the Applicant is in the nature of Extra

Judicial Confession; and as submitted by him, it was not reliable.


SUBMISSIONS OF MR. AMIT MUNDE, LEARNED SPP FOR CBI-
RESPONDENT NO.2

           i)    The trial Court, after assessment of the evidence,
                             10 of 29                ia-2142-26 (bail order)


had convicted the Applicant. The appreciation has been properly

done by the trial Court. At the time of consideration of bail

pending Appeal, minute appreciation of evidence on record is not

permissible.


           ii)    He further submitted that, in any case, the

prosecution witnesses PW-6 Kiran and PW-14 Vinay have identified

the Applicant before the trial Court. It is substantive evidence

regarding the identification. Therefore, the absence of TIP will not

make any difference. The TIP can only be used as an aid in the

investigation. It is not a substitute for substantive identification

before the Court. The important witnesses i.e. PW-6 Kiran, PW-14

Vinay and PW-10 Somnath have given their statements before the

Magistrate. The statements were recorded U/s.164 of the Cr.P.C.


           iii)   The evidence of extra judicial confession before

the learned Magistrate is a strong and reliable piece of evidence.

All these witnesses i.e. PW-6, PW-14 and PW-10 were totally

independent witnesses and they had no reason to falsely implicate

the Applicant.
                             11 of 29              ia-2142-26 (bail order)


           iv)   The learned Judge has elaborately discussed the

motive behind the murder. Therefore, in this case, this is an

additional circumstance against the Applicant.


           However, Shri. Munde made no notable submission in

respect of the FSL report at Exhibit-495.


SUBMISSIONS OF MR. AMIT SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE INTERVENOR.

           i)    Mr. Singh adopted the submissions made by Mr.

Munde. In addition, he submitted that, parity will not be

applicable to the Applicant in this case, though, his co-accused

Kalaskar was granted bail pending his Appeal. He submitted that,

there is major difference between the case of Kalaskar and the

present Applicant as there is an additional strong circumstance of

extra judicial confession made by the Applicant before PW-10

Somnath.


           ii)   PW-6 Kiran and PW-14 Vinay corroborate each

other. Their evidence gets corroboration from the evidence of PW-

10 Somnath. Nagori and Khandelwal referred to herein above

were let off because they were not involved in the crime. That
                               12 of 29                 ia-2142-26 (bail order)


would not be an advantage for the Applicant, because the

prosecution has established the case against the Applicant

independently.


            iii)   Though, the TIP was not held, the identity of the

assailants is established through their photographs. Not holding of

the TIP is not fatal to the prosecution in a criminal trial.


            iv)    In this case, though the weapon was not found,

that cannot be a ground to give benefit to the Applicant. If the

weapon is destroyed, it would not be found, and this circumstance

should not be held against the prosecution.


            v)     There are criminal antecedents against the

Applicant. He is an accused in one more similar case for

commission of the offence punishable U/s.302 of the IPC. Though,

in that case, the Appellant is on bail, the trial in that case is yet to

conclude. Therefore, the Applicant’s release on bail in this Appeal

would prejudice the conduct of that trial. The allegations in that

trial are similar. It is also a result of difference in ideology similar

to the present case.
                                        13 of 29           ia-2142-26 (bail order)


                 vi)     Only in exceptional circumstances, U/s.302 of the

IPC, grant of bail during pendency of Appeal is the right option.

The release of the accused on bail during the pendency of the

Appeal should be weighed against the adverse impact on the

society.


                 vii)    The learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the

plea raised by both the accused regarding their alibi.


                 Besides making oral submissions, Mr. Singh, learned

counsel for the Intervenor has also submitted the written

submissions; which are taken on record.


9.             Mr. Singh relied on the following Judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court:


                 i)      Ash Mohammad Versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla

Babu and another1. It is held in this case that the offences of this

nature are an impediment in establishment of orderly society.

There should be proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. The

societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of


1    (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 446
                                       14 of 29        ia-2142-26 (bail order)


individual liberty. The societal concern in a given case deserves to

be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the

accused.


                ii)     Omprakash Sahni Versus Jai Shankar Chaudhary

and another2. It was observed that, once the accused is held guilty,

the presumption of innocence gets erased. The endeavour on the

part of the Court, should be to see as to whether the case

presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court can

be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair

chances of acquittal. In that case, if the answer is affirmative, as a

necessary corollary, he should not be kept behind bars for a very

long time till conclusion of the Appeal. For this consideration,

something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the

record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie

satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The

Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage

of Section 389 of the Cr.PC and try to pick up a few lacunae or

loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would


2   (2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 123
                                       15 of 29      ia-2142-26 (bail order)


not be a correct approach.


                iii)    Sidhartha Vashist alias Manu Sharma Versus

State (NCT of Delhi)3. In this case, it was observed that in

considering the prayer for bail pending Appeal in a case involving

the offence U/s.302 of the IPC, the Court should consider all the

relevant factors like the nature of accusation, the manner in which

the crime was committed, gravity of the offence, the desirability of

releasing the accused on bail after he was convicted. The normal

practice in such cases was not to suspend the sentence and it was

only in exceptional circumstances, the benefit of suspension of

sentence can be granted.


                iv)     Sidhartha Vashist alias Manu Sharma Versus

State (NCT of Delhi)4. It was held that, where there is no previous

TIP, the Court may appreciate the dock identification as being

above-board and more than conclusive. It was also observed in the

same case in paragraph-258 that, according to the learned Solicitor

General, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the

Appellants, in that case, for their refusal to join the TIP. It was
3   (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 230
4   (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1
                                       16 of 29               ia-2142-26 (bail order)


further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the dock

identification is a substantive piece of evidence, therefore, even

without any TIP conducted, no prejudice could be caused to the

case of the prosecution.


                v)       Rajesh alias Sarkari and another Versus State of

Haryana5. It was observed that the identification parade belongs to

the stage of the investigation of crime and there is no provision

which compels the investigating agency to hold or confers a right

on the Accused to claim a TIP. The identification of the accused in

the Court constitutes substantive evidence. As a Rule of prudence,

the Court would, generally speaking, look for corroboration of the

witness’ identification of the Accused in court, in the form of

earlier identification proceedings. The Rule of prudence is subject

to the exception when the Court considers it safe to rely upon the

evidence       of    a    particular     witness   without   such    or     other

corroboration. The failure to hold the TIP, does not ipso facto make

the evidence of identification inadmissible. The weight that is

attached to such identification is a matter to be determined by the


5   (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 118
                             17 of 29                 ia-2142-26 (bail order)


Court in the circumstances of that particular case.


REASONS AND CONCLUSION


10.       We have considered these submissions. As mentioned

earlier, the main circumstances against the Applicant are the

evidence of the eye witnesses and the extra judicial confession.

PW-6 Kiran was an eye witness. He was serving as a Sweeper in

Pune Municipal Corporation. On 20.08.2013, he attended his work

between Omkareshwar Temple to Khati Vadapao place. He came

for his work at about 6:30 a.m. on 20.08.2013. At about 7:15 a.m.

he heard a sound like fire cracker bursting. He saw that two boys

were firing on an aged person. Those two boys went towards the

motorcycle which was parked near the police chowky and fled

away. The old man fell down. One of those two persons was taller

than the other. PW-6 further deposed that the Applicant and the

co-accused Kalaskar who were present in the court were the two

boys who had fired gun shots. He further deposed that, he rushed

towards the person lying on the road. Then, he and his co-worker

Meerabai went to have tea. Then he went to Modern colony to
                             18 of 29               ia-2142-26 (bail order)


complete his remaining work. His statement was recorded by Mr.

Phuge. He was called by CBI Officer Mr. Singh, who showed the

photographs to this witness. He identified those photographs.

Those photographs were marked as Exhibits 331 to 334. His

statement was recorded U/s.164 of the Cr.P.C. It is produced on

record at Exhibit-335. His evidence was recorded before the trial

Court on 19.03.2022.


           In the cross-examination, he deposed that the police

met him for the first time on 02.09.2013, and till then he had not

disclosed about the incident to the police. The photographs were

shown to him after four to five years of the incident. In the

statement recorded U/s.164 of the Cr.PC, he had stated that he

was called to the office of the Police Commissioner. The police had

made inquiries with him, but at that time, he had told the police

that he had not seen anything. Subsequently, he felt like narrating

the incident to the police. Then he gave his statement before Shri.

Phuge. He was called by the CBI officer on 25.12.2018 and he was

shown the photographs of two persons. He had identified one of

them, whose name was Kalaskar. Importantly, he had stated that,
                             19 of 29                 ia-2142-26 (bail order)


he had not seen the other person committing the murder. He came

to know that, the name of that person was Andure (present

applicant).


11.       From the evidence of this witness PW-6 Kiran, more

important facts emerged which are not controverted. His

substantive identification in the Court was in March 2022, that

was almost after about eight years and seven months. That is a

long period to test his memory. As far as the identification of the

photographs is concerned, his statement recorded U/s.164 of the

Cr.PC clearly mentions that he had identified only the photograph

of Kalaskar and not of the present Applicant. In fact, he was told

by the police that the other person’s name was Andure (Applicant’s

name), and he had told the police that he had not seen that person

committing the murder. In any case, he was shown the

photographs on 25.12.2018. The Applicant was arrested on

18.08.2018. There was no reason as to why TIP was not held

instead of showing the photographs of the suspects.


12.       PW-14 Vinay is the other eye witness examined by the
                            20 of 29               ia-2142-26 (bail order)


prosecution. He deposed that, he used to go for morning walk and

jogging everyday. On 20.08.2013, he returned home at around

7:00a.m. from his morning walk. He went to his balcony. At that

time, he saw an aged person proceeding on Balgandharva bridge.

There is Omkareshwar temple in front of his house at one end of

the bridge and on the other end of the bridge there is

Balgandharva theater. On seeing the aged person walking, within

one to one and half minute, he heard the sound of bullet shots. He

looked at the place from where he heard the sound. He saw that

the aged person was lying on the ground. Two boys who had

followed him were running in the opposite direction and they

came towards his house. Both of them went towards the police

chowky. They started a motorcycle parked there and went away.

He saw the motorcycle number; it was 7756. Both of them were in

the age group of 25 to 30 years and of wheatish complexion. This

witness went towards the dead body and told a lady police officer

about the incident. His statement was recorded by the police. He

identified the Accused Nos.2 and 3 before the Court as the persons

who had fired bullets. On 27.12.2018, CBI officer Mr. Singh called
                              21 of 29                  ia-2142-26 (bail order)


him at CBI office, Khadki. He showed him some photographs.

From out of 10 to 12 photographs, he took out two photographs.

Those photographs were marked at Exhibits-460 and 461. Both the

photographs were of the same person. His deposition was recorded

on 25.11.2022. That means, his deposition was recorded after nine

years and three months from the date of incident.


            In the cross-examination, he admitted that the

photograph at Exhibit-460 showed the person with the name plate

in his hands and the name was ‘Sharad Kalaskar’.


13.       From the evidence of this witness PW-14, it is clear that

his deposition was recorded in November 2022, hence, his

substantive identification in the Court was in November 2022

which was almost after nine years and three months. That is also a

long period to test his memory. His cross-examination shows that,

he had identified the photograph of Sharad Kalaskar only and not

of the Applicant. The Applicant was arrested on 18.08.2018. There

was no reason as to why TIP was not conducted. There is no clear

identification, as far as the Applicant is concerned.
                             22 of 29                ia-2142-26 (bail order)


           This is the only evidence led by the prosecution in the

nature of evidence of the two eye witnesses i.e. PW-6 Kiran and

PW-14 Vinay.


14.       The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution

against the present Applicant was in the nature of extra judicial

confession made by him before PW-10 Somnath Dhayade. PW-10

Somnath deposed that he was running a restaurant named

Shraddha Chat Bhandar at Jawahar Colony, Aurangabad. He had

subscribed for ‘Sanatan Prabhat’ weekly. He used to attend the

programmes arranged by him through HJS. In the year 2012, he

attended the programme in front of Gajanan Maharaj Temple,

Garkheda. At that time, he met the Applicant and one Rushikesh

Devdikar. They used to visit PW-10’s restaurant occasionally. He

identified the Applicant before the Court. Both of them used to

discuss ‘Hindutva’ with this witness. They used to encourage this

witness to be a volunteer for HJS. He was aware that the deceased

in this case used to work for eradication of superstition. He learned

about his murder from the television news. He deposed that, for

about six months before the incident, the Applicant and Rushikesh
                            23 of 29               ia-2142-26 (bail order)


Devdikar had not met him. After about 15 days from the incident,

the Applicant came to his restaurant. He appeared unhappy. He

looked unclean and untidy. This witness sat besides him and

enquired with him as to why he was unhappy. The Applicant asked

this witness whether he could disclose something. When this

witness insisted, the Applicant told him that he had killed Dr.

Narendra Dabholkar by firing bullet shots, and that he was

accompanied by Sharad Kalaskar who had also fired bullets. On

hearing this, PW-10 was shocked. He asked the Applicant, why he

was confessing to him and why the Applicant was involving him in

that matter. By making some excuses, this witness left the place.

The Applicant had asked him that, if he was arrested, whether this

witness would help the Applicant. After 15 to 20 days, Devdikar

came to PW-10’s restaurant. PW-10 told him about the Applicant’s

confession. Devdikar then left the place. On 22.08.2018, the CBI

officer called him. He attended the CBI office at Mumbai on

23.08.2018 and gave his statement. His statement was also

recorded U/s.164 of the Cr.PC on 27.08.2018.


           There were certain omissions from his statement which
                               24 of 29           ia-2142-26 (bail order)


were put to him in the cross-examination. However, certain

important facts emerged from his deposition. He narrated about

the extra judicial confession after five years from the date when

the alleged extra judicial confession was made by the Accused

No.2-the Applicant. The CBI officer who had called him was not

examined. Devdikar, to whom, PW-10 had shared this information

is not examined. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-

10 Somnath. There is nothing to show that the Applicant was so

close to him that he would confess his crime before this witness.

There is no connecting piece of evidence to show as to how the

CBI officer got to know that the Applicant had made a confession

to PW-10 Somnath. His evidence thus is a very weak piece of

evidence.


            Apart from these main features, there is one more

significant feature in this case.


15.         PW-16 ACP Manohar Joshi, who had carried out some

part of the investigation, was cross-examined on behalf of the

Applicant and the other accused. He produced the report of
                               25 of 29                 ia-2142-26 (bail order)


Ballistics Expert at Exhibit-495. The report was taken on record as

per Section 293 of the Cr.PC as is noted by the learned Trial Judge

in paragraph-55 of the deposition of PW-16. The said report is

quite significant. The result of analysis mentioned in the report

indicates that 7.65mm copper jacketed pistol bullet and the

deformed copper jacketed pistol bullet received from the Medical

Officer of B. J. Medical College, Pune, tallied among themselves

and with the test-fired bullets from the country-made pistol

received from Mumbra police station. Those weapons were

received by the FSL on 19.09.2013. The report is dated

14.11.2013. These dates are much before the arrest of the present

applicant in the year 2018. Thus, the police authority had the

weapon matching with the bullets recovered from the dead body

and yet there was no further investigation in that direction. There

is absolutely no explanation regarding the same. We specifically

asked Mr. Munde to explain this circumstance, but there was no

answer.


16.       Thus,   from   the     above    discussion,   the     following

observations can safely be made:
                             26 of 29                ia-2142-26 (bail order)


           (i)    The identification of the Applicant by PW-6 Kiran

and PW-14 Vinay is extremely weak. They have identified the

Applicant for the first time after the incident after about eight

years and seven months, and nine years and three months

respectively; that is quite a long period for identification. Both

these witnesses had not identified the photograph of the present

Applicant. Therefore, though, in a given case, the identification in

the Court as a substantive piece of evidence could be relevant, in

the present case, it is an extremely weak piece of evidence.


           (ii)   The extra judicial confession, as discussed above,

is also another extremely weak piece of evidence. PW-10 Somnath

had kept quiet for about more than five years. PW-10 Somnath

made this disclosure on 23.08.2018. The Applicant was arrested

on 18.08.2018. This disclosure about the extra judicial confession

was made by PW-10 Somnath after five years from such disclosure

and significantly after the arrest of the Applicant. There is no

corroboration to his evidence.


           (iii) In this case, the co-accused Sharad Kalaskar is
                             27 of 29                 ia-2142-26 (bail order)


granted bail pending his Appeal. The main evidence against

Sharad Kalaskar was identification in the Court. On that point, the

Applicant’s case is stronger because the Applicant’s photograph

was not even identified by the two eye witnesses, whereas,

Kalaskar’s photograph was identified. The distinguishing feature

for the Applicant in the form of extra judicial confession, as

discussed, is very weak.


           There is a loose end regarding the recovery of the

weapon and the Ballistic Expert’s opinion at Exhibit-495. No

explanation is offered by the investigating agency.


17.       Considering the above circumstances, there are fair

chances of the Applicant’s acquittal in his Appeal. In the other

matter where the Applicant is an accused of an offence U/s.302 of

the IPC, he is granted bail. The evidence against the Applicant is

very weak, even by prima facie observations, without analysing the

evidence in depth. The Applicant is in custody on the basis of this

weak piece of evidence for about six years from the arrest in this

case. Considering these facts, the Applicant deserves to be released
                               28 of 29                ia-2142-26 (bail order)


on bail on the similar conditions imposed on the co-accused

Sharad Kalaskar, by another Division Bench of this Court vide the

order dated 29.04.2026 passed in Interim Application No. 312 of

2025 in Criminal Appeal No.641 of 2024. It is made clear that

these observations are made only for deciding this application for

bail pending Appeal.

18.      Hence, the following order:

                                          ORDER

             i)   During the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.733
                  of   2024    preferred   by    the   Applicant,        the
                  substantive sentence imposed on the Applicant
                  vide the Judgment and order dated 10.05.2024
                  passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
                  Pune, in Sessions Case No.706 of 2016 is
                  suspended, and the Applicant is directed to be
                  released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in
                  the sum of Rs.50000/- with one or two local
                  sureties in the like amount.

             ii) Before his release from jail, the Applicant shall
                  give his residential address and contact number
                  on which he or his any close relative can be
                  contacted.
                            29 of 29                     ia-2142-26 (bail order)


           iii) After his release from Jail, the Applicant shall
              attend the Deccan Police station on every first
              Monday of each month between 10:00 a.m. and
              1:00 p.m. initially for a period of one year and
              thereafter    on         every   first   Monday     between
              10:00a.m. and 1:00 p.m. of every third calender
              month i.e. four times in a year, till the disposal of
              the Appeal.

           iv) In case of two consecutive defaults in complying
              with the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution is
              at liberty to file an application for cancellation of
              bail.

           v) The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.




(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)                (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)