SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 196

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Shobha Namdev Sonavane – Appellant
Versus
Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Priyanka Deshpande, Adv. Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Ratio Decidendi:

There is a clear distinction between cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 483(3) BNSS) and reversal of an order granting bail by a superior court. (!) (!)

Cancellation of bail is to be resorted to only where the accused misuses the liberty of bail or tampers with evidence. (!) (!) (!)

A superior court may interfere with and reverse an order granting bail by considering the nature and gravity of the offences, where the bail order ignores relevant material on record or is based on extraneous considerations. (!) (!) (!)

Where accused form an unlawful assembly with a common object to assault and kill the victim (invoking Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC), each member is equally responsible for acts in furtherance of the common object, without need to prove specific individual roles for bail purposes. (!) (!) (!)

Prior litigation between parties, treated by a court as a ground for granting bail, can instead indicate motive for the assault by accused. (!)

In grave offences like murder (Section 302 IPC) combined with SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act violations, bail grant ignoring multiple injuries, concerted attack, and caste-based insults is liable to be set aside. (!) (!) (!) [p_50-60] (!)


JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The original complainant, Shobha Namdev Sonavane1[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘complainant/appellant’], is before us for assailing the order dated 1st March, 2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad2[Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.] in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2023, whereby respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were granted bail in connection with Crime No. 322 of 2022 registered with Kopargaon Taluka Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 354, 294, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 509, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427 of Indian Penal Code, 18603[Hereinafter, referred to as the “I.P.C.”.] and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4[Hereinafter, referred to as the “SC/ST Act”.]

4. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

I. BRIEF FACTS

5. The appellant lodged a complaint at P.S. Kopargaon Taluka on 19th August, 2022 alleging inter alia that a prior civil dispute existed between the complainant’s fami

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top