Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane & Ors.

statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

#4. Status report already been filed by learned State Counsel and the Custody Certificate filed today, be taken on record.

#6. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedent and that he has already suffered incarceration for a period of one year, one month and two days. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case, the challan qua two accused is yet to be filed, and that during the course of trial, with regard to petitioner and other co-accused, an application under Section 319 CrPC has been filed. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.

#7. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused have already been granted the benefit of bail and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital. CRM-M-29642-2026 (O&M) 3

#8. The abovementioned arguments have been controverted by learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. While referring to the principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Shobha Namdev Sonavane Vs. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Others’ 2026 SCC Online SC 291, it has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner was member of an unlawful assembly responsible for inflicting multiple injuries on the person of complainant and therefore, he is responsible for the act committed by the abovementioned group of assailants. According to learned counsel for the complainant in fact in the present case very serious nature of injuries were inflicted on the person of complainant, as one leg of the complainant has been chopped off.

#9. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, who was armed with a sword at the time of commission of offence and inflicted injury on the neck, a vital part of the body, of the complainant. While claiming that gravity of offence and the specific role played by the petitioner in the commission of offence renders him ineligible for the benefit of bail, the dismissal of bail application has been sought by learned counsel for the complainant.

#11. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- CRM-M-29642-2026 (O&M) 4 i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of ii. iii. one year, one month and two days; that the petitioner has clean antecedent; that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as challan qua two co-accused is yet to be filed, and in addition to above, one application under Section 319 CrPC has been moved, which may lead to a situation wherein additional accused might be summoned; iv. that investigation in this case qua petitioner is already complete and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; v. that the complainant/injured has already been discharged from the hospital; vi. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; vii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and viii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

#12. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. CRM-M-29642-2026 (O&M) 5 Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

#13. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investiga- tion and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. CRM-M-29642-2026 (O&M) 6 On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

#14. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhat- tisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the ac- cused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credi- bility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

#15. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of In- dia. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and An- other”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

#16. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, in- volved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present peti- tion deserves to be allowed. CRM-M-29642-2026 (O&M) 7

#17. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

20.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No