1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. This is the third successive bail application.
2. By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “SC/ST Act”) r/w Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants take exception to the order dated 14/05/2026 passed below Exh.9 in Special Case No.48/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, thereby declined to release the appellants on regular bail in connection with Crime No.375/2025 registered with Police Station Sawangi (Meghe), Dist. Wardha for the offences punishable under Sections 117(2), 103(1) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
3. The facts in brief, as stated in the FIR are that on 30/04/2025, the respondent No.2 informant lodged a report with Sawangi (Meghe) Police Station alleging that, on the day of incident, her husband had gone to attend his usual work and her son Akash had also left the house for his work. However, the informant and her other two sons namely Mohan and Gaurav were present in the house. Meanwhile, Mohan Uike her son also went out and was seating at the square near house of one Panjab Dhurve situated opposite to her house. Her son was visible from her house.
4. According to the respondent No.2/informant, the present appellants started quarrelling with her son Mohan but she felt about merely a friendly quarrel. Therefore, she did not visit at the square. The present Appellant No.1 Vitthal s/o Ashokrao Zade and Appellant No.2 Dinesh s/o Chatrapati Satpute assaulted her son with fists and blows, due to which her son Mohan fell down on the cement road but even thereafter, both these appellants assaulted her son. Thereafter, Lata Pusnake, Vivek Pusnake and others who were present near the spot of incident visited her son. Thereafter both these appellants fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the respondent No.2/Informant called one Mr. Gaurav and thereafter, both of them visited the injured Mohan. At that time, she found that her son unconscious and blood was oozing from his nose. Thereafter, her younger son brought the injured Mohan by lifting him on shoulder and taken him Hospital by Auto Rikshaw. However, the injured declared dead on next day. On the basis of said report, a Crime No.375/2025 is registered with Sawangi Police Station (Meghe) for the offences punishable under Sections 117(2), 103(1) r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
5. The appellants/Accused had filed Exh.9 in Special Case No.48/2025 and prayed for bail during the pendency of trial. On 14/05/2026, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order and rejected the bail application, hence the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed in vehemence that as per the contents of report, the appellants/accused allegedly beat the victim with fists and blows and there was no any motive to cause death of the victim but there appears to be petty quarrel. It is further canvassed that, after the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the appellants, however, material placed on the record does not appear that the present appellants/accused preminded to cause the death of the deceased and no any deadly weapon has been used while committing the crime. But due to assault with fists and blows, the deceased fell down on cement road and sustained head injury, which resulted in homicidal death. Therefore, it prima facie shows that the appellants were not having intention to cause homicidal death of the deceased but it was without premeditation, intention and motive.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further canvassed that, on 30/04/2025 at 20.23, the FIR came to be registered and the appellants are arrested on the same day. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet in Crime No.375/2025 on 24/05/2025. The learned Trial Court already framed charges against the appellants on 31/01/2026 but since past 6 months, the prosecution failed to examine the witnesses and they are languishing in jail from more than one year from their arrest. The appellants are not having criminal past record and they are ready and willing to abide by all terms and conditions, if any imposes while releasing the appellants on bail. Therefore, considering gravity of crime and all of sudden assault, prayed for grant of bail during pendency of trial.
8. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on the following judgments as under :-
1] Babu Singh and others V/s. The State of U.P., reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 527.
2] Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh V/s. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2024) 9 Supreme Court Cases 813.
3] Sujit Rampal Mishra V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR Online 2022 BOM 1036.
4] Ramakant Sureshchandra Kewat V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR Online 2021 Bom 1479.
5] Pintu Alias Ashish V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR Online 2021 Bom 2438.
6] Naveen Kumar V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR Online 2020 Kar 2031.
7] Mahesha Kantharaj V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR Online 2020 Kar 1271.
8] Naveen Alias Pelu V/s. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR Online 2023 DEL 381.
9] Sharath Yadav V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR Online 2018 Kar 262.
10] J.R. Prasanna & another V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in 2014(1) AKR 837:(2013) 2 Kant LJ 448 (KAR).
11] Jashiben Bhikhabhai Raval V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR Online 2021 Guj 919.
12] Kartik V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR Online 2019 HP 70.
13] Shakib alias Shakib V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in 2018(1) AKR 197:: (2018) 4 KCCR 357 (KAR).
14] Harish Singh V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR Online 2023 HP 582.
15] Muniya V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR Online 2019 Kar 1144.
16] Ajjaiah S alias AJJaya V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR Online 2020 Kar 2095.
17] Mohan Lal V/s. State of U.P., reported in AlR Online 2021 All 1167.
18] Mukeshbhai Ramabhai Parmar V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR Online 2021 Bom 1479.
19] Sonu Pandey alias Sonu Pandit V/s. State of Jharkhand, reported in AIR Online 2019 Jha 188.
20] Manoj V/s. State of Haryana, reported in AIR Online 2023 P&H 251.
21] Beerendra Manji V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR Online 2019 Kar 925.
9. Per contra, Shri G. S. Umale, learned APP strongly opposed the appeal on the ground that, there are eye-witnesses to the incident, who have seen while assaulting the victim by the appellants with fists and blows. As per the statements of the eye witnesses, the appellants kept on assaulting the victim by fists, blows and kicks even though the victim was fell and struck his head on the ground. The learned APP invited attention of this Court to the Post-Morterm Report, wherein the Medical Officer found head injury and cause of death of the deceased due to said injury. Therefore, the learned APP canvassed that the present appellants assaulted the victim mercilessly and caused his death, hence, the appellants are not entitled for bail.
10. The learned APP further canvassed that the witnesses and the accused are residents of the same vicinity. Therefore, there is every possibility to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and to issue threat. Further, there is every possibility to hamper the trial, if the appellants are released on bail, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Shri A. M. Jaltare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 canvassed that, initially, a Crime No.375/2025 was registered against the present appellants for the offence punishable under Section 117 r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS, however, during the course of the treatment, the victim succumbed to the injuries. The Appellants are author of injuries. The offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS provides punishment of death or life imprisonment and punishment for the offences under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act provides upto 5 years with fine.
12. It is further canvassed that the victim sustained the injuries, due to direct act of assault at the hands of the appellants and if there have not been assault at the hands of the appellants, the injured could not have sustained such injuries and no death of the deceased Mohan could have been caused. Therefore, the appellants have committed the homicidal death of the deceased, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Shri A. M. Jaltare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 further canvassed that, as per the statements of the eye-witnesses i.e. complainant and one Smt. Usha Salame, the appellants continued to assault the victim even after the injured person fell on the cement road. The statements of other witnesses namely; Sau. Durga Pusnake, Prabha Kanakke, Puja Munde and Sau. Lata Pusnake show that, these witnesses were present at the spot of incident and they asked the appellants not to assault the injured or else, the injured would die, but the appellants were continuously beating the deceased. Therefore, the intention and motive of the appellants proves to cause homicidal death to the deceased Mohan. The punishment provided under Section 103 of the BNS is upto life imprisonment for committing murder. Therefore, if the appellants are released on bail, at this juncture, there is every possibility to tamper or pressurize the prosecution witnesses, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
14. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the record. On perusal of FIR, it prima facie appears that on 30/04/2025 at about 11.30 to 12.00 pm., when the deceased Mohan (son of the respondent No.2 – informant) was sitting at square, at that time, the present appellants (1) Vitthal Zade and (2) Dinesh Satpute visited and they orally quarrelled with the deceased. After registration of crime, the appellants/ accused are arrested on 30/04/2025 and since then they are behind the bar.
15. As per statement of the Informant/Respondent No.2 there was no serious quarrel, hence, she did not visit her son. But subsequently, the present appellants assaulted the victim Mohan with fists and blows due to which, the injured person fell on the cement road and sustained injuries. Soon thereafter witnesses visited the spot of incident and both these appellants fled away from the spot.
16. It is matter of record that, Mr. Gaurav, younger son of the informant lifted the deceased Mohan on his shoulder at his home and noticed about oozing blood from nose of the victim. Indeed, the injured was unconscious and subsequently, he was admitted in Hospital on 30/04/2025 at about 14.43 hours and injured was medically treated, however, on 01/05/2025 at 9.00 a.m., the injured Mohan died while hospitalization. As per the post mortem report, the death of the deceased was caused due to head injury.
17. On perusal of the post-mortem report, it appears that the Medical Officer found following injuries :-
| (i) | Injuries under the scalp, their nature. | Underscalp haematoma present over right temporal region, of size 5 x 4 cm, haematoma present in right temporals muscle. |
| (ii) | Skull-Vault and base–describe fractures, their sites, dimentions, directions etc. | Linear fracture present over right temporal bone, of size 3 cm. |
| (iii) | Brain-The appearance of its coverings, size, weight and general condition of the organt it self and any abnormality found in its examination to be carefully noted (weight M.3 gram F.2.75 grams). | Meninges-Intact Brain matter Oedematous, congested, subdinal haematoma present over left fronto-temporo-parietal region. Subarachnoid haemorrhage present over left temporo-parietal region and right parietal region. |
19. Needless to say that, the Investigating Officer has drawn the spot panchnama and seized clothes of the accused persons under Seizure Panchnama. The I.O., recorded the statements of the witnesses. On perusal of statements of witnesses it appears that, both these appellants assaulted the victim with fists and blows. The statement of witness namely Sau. Durga Pramod Pusnake appears that, both these appellants repeatedly slammed the deceased/victim against the ground and blood was oozing from nose of the victim. The charge sheet does not disclose that because the victim was belonging to the member of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes, he was assaulted or he was abused on his caste in the public view.
20. During the course of the argument, both sides fairly stated that on 24/05/2025, charge sheet has been filed and on 31/01/2026, the charges have already been framed against the appellants / accused but even after lapse of more than six months, trial yet to begun.
21. In case of Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh, cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19 observed as under :-
“16. Criminals are not born but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
18. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
19. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”
22. In case of Sujit Rampal Mishra (cited supra), this Court has held that as per the evidence, there was scuffle between two groups, the appellants, allegedly inflicted injuries on the person of Nikhil (injured) and Novesh (deceased) with broken pieces of glass. Nikhil survived, but Novesh succumbed to puncture wound over the side of the neck near left ear. However, prima facie, the incident was not premeditated, in the sense, the broken pieces of glass were found on the spot of the incident, which were allegedly used by the appellants. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though the trial was commenced, there were no chances to complete the trial in near future, hence, the appellants/accused were released on conditional bail.
23. In case of Ramakant Sureshchandra Kewat, (cited supra), the Principal Seat of this Court released the accused on bail, though it was second successive bail application, because it was not the intention of the accused to commit culpable homicidal death of the deceased and the accused had given single blow with a dumbbell on the head of the deceased while they were quarrelling, hence, there was no premeditation and the accused was languishing in jail for 33 months. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, bail was granted.
24. In the case in hand, the appellants/accused have not used any weapon but they assaulted the deceased/victim Mohan with fists and blows and due to scuffle, the deceased appears to be fell down on concrete road, due to which he sustained injuries as described in Para No.19 of post-mortem report. The Medical Officer did not notice any other grievous injury other than the abrasion and punctured wound as mentioned in Para No.17.
25. The statements of the prosecution witnesses do not show about old enmity between the deceased and appellants/ accused on any account. No doubt, the prosecution has cited 30 witnesses in the charge sheet and despite charges are framed on 31/01/2026, the prosecution has not examined any witnesses till date. Therefore, considering the nature of the offence and assault with fists and blows, as well as statements of the prosecution witnesses do not appear that there was motive and intention of the appellants to cause homicidal death of the deceased. The material placed on record does not appear that the appellants would be in a position to influence the witnesses or that they would not be available to face the trial, which are extremely important considerations while considering the entitlement of bail.
26. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the appellants have made out a prima facie case to enlarge them on bail, during the pendency of trial. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
1] Criminal Appeal No.248/2026 is hereby allowed.
2] The impugned order dated 14/05/2026 passed below Exh.9 in Special Case No.48/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha is hereby quashed and set aside.
3] Appellant No.1 – Vitthal s/o Ashokrao Zade and Appellant No.2 – Dinesh s/o Chatrapati Satpute are hereby released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.50,000/-each with two solvent sureties in the like amount with the following conditions :-
A] The appellants – accused shall not enter in the village Paloti, Tq. and Dist. Wardha, during the pendency of the trial and they shall not influence the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly or they shall not contact the prosecution witnesses by any electronic mode including mobile.
B] The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activities while they are on bail.
C] The appellants shall not issue any threat to the prosecution witnesses and they shall not destroy the evidence in whatsoever manner.
D] The appellants shall regularly appear before the Trial Court and they shall co-operate for the conclusion of the trial.
E] The appellants shall furnish their Aadhar Card, Mobile Number and they shall not change the SIM Card.
F] Violation of any bail condition or failure to appear before the Trial Court, the prosecution will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail.
27. The criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.