Supreme Court: In a case concerning grant and cancellation of bail in a murder case arising out of an alleged pre-planned attack in which the deceased-complainant was set ablaze, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., held that the circumstances of the case, including the repeated threats extended by the accused persons, their arrival together at the crime scene in a four-wheeler carrying petrol, and the subsequent act of pouring inflammable fluid over the deceased and setting him ablaze, prima facie indicated that the accused persons were acting in concert and in furtherance of a common intention.
The Court observed that in serious offences like murder, an order granting bail must reflect proper application of mind to the facts of the case and justifiable reasons must be recorded. Finding that the reasons assigned by the High Court for granting bail to Accused 4, which formed the foundation for extending parity to Accused 3, were flimsy and untenable in the eyes of law, the Court set aside the orders granting bail to Accused 3 and 4 and cancelled their bail. However, noting that Accused 5 was admittedly not present at the place of occurrence and that the allegations against him were founded on circumstantial evidence, the Court affirmed the order granting him bail. The appeal preferred by Accused 2 seeking bail was dismissed. The Court accordingly allowed the State’s appeals against grant of bail to Accused 3 and 4, dismissed the State’s appeal against grant of bail to Accused 5, and directed the trial court to complete the trial within 2 years.
Background
The present appeals, by special leave, arise out of separate orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, and the Additional Sessions Court, Satara, in connection with FIR No. 261 of 2024 dated 12 June 2024, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 109, 504 and 506 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Accused 3—5 were granted regular bail, whereas the regular bail application of Accused 2 came to be rejected.
All the accused persons were arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR lodged at the instance of Anil Madhukar Shinde. Accused 2, 3 and 4, who were initially referred to as “unidentified accomplices” in the FIR, were subsequently identified as the assailants allegedly involved in the commission of the offence along with Accused 1. Their identity was established through a Test Identification Parade conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Satara, wherein they were identified by the eyewitnesses, and the said identification was further corroborated by forensic analysis of CCTV footage and mobile-phone video recordings seized during investigation.
The trial court, vide order dated 13 January 2026, granted regular bail to Accused 3 on the ground of parity with co-accused 4 and 5, who had earlier been enlarged on bail by the High Court. Accused 5 was granted bail, inter alia, on the ground that although allegations of instigation were levelled against him, he had not physically participated in the act of setting the deceased-complainant ablaze, coupled with completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet, limited criminal antecedents and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time.
In contrast, the High Court, vide order dated 27 March 2026, declined regular bail to Accused 2, observing that the offence was prima facie heinous and premeditated. The High Court found that his conscious act of transporting the co-accused to the residence of the deceased-complainant while they were carrying petrol and other inflammable articles, and thereafter taking them back from the spot, prima facie indicated common intention within the meaning of Section 34 IPC. His role as the driver of the vehicle and lookout during the occurrence was held to be an integral part of the concerted attack and not a mere passive presence. Aggrieved thereby, Accused 2 has approached the Supreme Court seeking regular bail, while the State of Maharashtra has assailed the orders granting bail to Accused 3, 4 and 5.
Analysis
The Court, upon consideration of the facts on record and the impugned orders, held that the case of Accused 5 stood on a materially different footing. He was admittedly not present at the place of occurrence when the deceased was set ablaze, and the allegation of his involvement in hatching the conspiracy and providing the petrol was founded on circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the order granting him bail and affirmed the same.
Insofar as Accused 1—4 were concerned, the Court found that the High Court and the trial court had completely overlooked the material facts disclosed in the FIR. The deceased-complainant had specifically stated that accused and three subsequently identified assailants had launched repeated attacks on his house, threatening the family and demanding that his son, Prajwal, come out and apologise in relation to an earlier incident. The 4 assailants had arrived together in a four-wheeler carrying a can containing petrol, pursuant to which Accused 1 poured petrol over the deceased-complainant and set him ablaze.
The Court held that these facts prima facie indicated that the accused persons were acting in concert and in furtherance of a common intention. The incident was not a sudden occurrence but a pre-planned attack, preceded by repeated threats and preparation to commit a grave offence. The fact that the accused persons carried a can containing petrol in the vehicle in which they arrived at the crime scene, coupled with the time of the incident, prior preparation and repeated threats, constituted significant and grave circumstances indicating the premeditated nature of the attack.
Relying upon the settled principles laid down in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598, Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, and Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 172, the Court held that in serious offences like murder, an order granting bail must reflect proper application of mind to the facts of the case and justifiable reasons must be recorded. The Court found the reasons assigned by the High Court for granting bail to Accused 4, which formed the foundation for extending parity to Accused 3, to be flimsy and untenable in the eyes of law.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court held that the aforesaid circumstances weighed heavily against grant of the discretionary relief of bail and disentitled Accused 3 and 4 from claiming the indulgence of bail. The appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra against grant of bail to Accused 3 and 4 were allowed, the orders granting bail to Accused 4 and Accused 3 were set aside and their bail was cancelled. They were directed to surrender within 3 weeks, failing which the learned trial court was directed to take appropriate steps for their arrest and bringing them to trial.
The appeal preferred by Accused 2 seeking bail and the State’s appeal against grant of bail to Accused 5 were dismissed as being devoid of merit. The Court clarified that its observations were confined solely to consideration of grant or cancellation of bail and would not prejudice the trial on merits. The trial court was directed to complete the trial within a period of 2 years from the date of presentation of the order.
Also Read: Del HC grants bail in Jungpura doctor murder case | SCC Times
[Yash Mahesh Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1696, decided on 20-8-2026]
*Judgement authored by: Justice Sandeep Mehta
