Bombay High Court
ANKITA RANJIT NIMBALKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
- Bench
- N R BORKAR
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the applicant’s alleged role in summoning the co‑accused and the seriousness of the offences preclude release.
Summary
The applicant, Gautam Shahajirao Kakade, was arrested for offences including murder (IPC s.302) and several other IPC and Arms Act sections arising from an altercation over a unpaid amount for a bullock, during which a co-accused shot the deceased. The prosecution alleges the applicant called the co-accused, who then used a pistol, while the defence contends the applicant had no knowledge of the weapon and the act was not pre‑meditated. The applicant, detained for over one and a half years with the trial only at the charge‑framing stage, sought regular bail, citing prolonged incarceration and lack of production on numerous dates. The court examined eyewitness statements indicating the applicant threatened the deceased and summoned the co‑accused, finding prima facie involvement. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, and the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder and related offences given the seriousness of the crime and alleged involvement.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged lack of knowledge of the firearm and absence of pre‑meditation warrant bail.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention and delay in trial justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 29, 3, 30
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 307, 352, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- pre‑meditation
- trial delay
- serious offences
Judgment
912-ba-4588-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4588 OF 2025
Gautam Shahajirao Kakade ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4801 OF 2025
….
Sr. Adv. Mr. Abad Ponda, a/w Mr. Ranjeet M. Pawar, Mr.
Bhargav Pataskar, Mr. Atharva Galinde, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Smt. Mankuwar M. Deshmukh, PP with V. N. Sagare, A.P.P. for
the Respondent – State.
Mr. Kuldeep Patil, a/w Mr. Shailesh Chavan, Mr. Hrishikesh
Avhad, Ms. Sanika Joshi, Mr. Sachin Pawar, Advocate for the
Intervener.
….
CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 08.01.2026.
P.C.:
1. This is an application for regular bail.
2. The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No.
283 of 2024 registered at Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police
Station, Dist-Pune for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 352, 504, 506 and
Pramod S.Lakare 1 of 4
912-ba-4588-2025.doc
201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3, 25, 29,
& 30 of the Arms Act.
3. According to the prosecution, on the date of
incident, which took place on 27.06.2024, an altercation
took place between the deceased and the present
applicant. The cause for the said altercation was non-
payment of certain amount towards sale of bullock by the
deceased to the applicant. The deceased was asking the
applicant to pay remaining amount, or else he would take
back his bullock. It is alleged that the applicant got
annoyed and called the other co-accused. It is alleged that
one of the co-accused came with a pistol and fired at the
deceased. The bullet hit the head of the deceased. It is
alleged that the deceased died due to firearm injury.
4. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the
applicant, the learned PP for the respondent/State and the
learned counsel for the first informant.
5. The learned senior counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant had no knowledge that the co-
accused was carrying pistol. It is submitted that all of
sudden the said co-accused took out the pistol and he
Pramod S.Lakare 2 of 4
912-ba-4588-2025.doc
fired at the deceased. It is submitted that even otherwise
the incident was not premeditated. The learned senior
counsel has drawn my attention to the order passed by
this Court dated 23.01.2025 in Criminal Bail Application
No. 5079 of 2024. By the said order, the applicant was
permitted to withdraw his earlier bail application with
liberty to file fresh bail application after nine months. The
learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is in jail for more than one and half years and
the trial is still at the stage of framing of charge and thus
trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. It is
submitted that the applicant was not produced before the
trial Court on at least 35 dates.
6. On the other hand, the learned PP for the
Respondent/State and the learned counsel for the first
informant submit that the case is based on direct
evidence. It is submitted that the present applicant is
instrumental for the crime in question, as he called the
other co-accused. It is submitted that, considering the
nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on bail
and the trial be expedited.
7. I have perused the First Information Report and
Pramod S.Lakare 3 of 4
912-ba-4588-2025.doc
the statement of eye witnesses. It appears from the
statement of eye witnesses that during altercation the
present applicant had threatened the deceased that he
would see how he takes back the bullock and then called
the other co-accused. The said threat would prima-facie
show that the co-accused were called to assault the
deceased. Considering the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on
bail. The application is rejected. However, the trial Court
shall endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible.
8. The interim application stands disposed of.
(N. R. BORKAR, J.)
Pramod S.Lakare 4 of 4
Checking your session…