Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Shobha Namdev Sonavane – Appellant
Versus
Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane And Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1100 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 12440 of 2023)
Decided On : 23-02-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) [Corresponding to Section 483(3) BNSS] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 354, 294, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 509, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 427 read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(g) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Bail – Cancellation of – There is clear distinction between cancellation of bail on the considerations provided under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. and reversal of order of bail by superior Court – While cancellation should only be resorted to in cases where accused misuses liberty of bail granted to him or tampers with evidence – On other hand, order granting bail can be interfered with by superior Court considering nature and gravity of offences; if order granting bail ignores relevant material available on record or that same is based on extraneous considerations – Prior litigation between parties, which has been treated as one of grounds for granting bail by High Court, can work both ways – This litigation could, very well, have fuelled respondents-accused with motive to launch assault – As per FIR, there was concerted attack by accused persons – When appellant tried to intervene and save her husband, she too was beaten and subjected to caste-based insults and suffered injuries at the hands of the assailants – There is clear allegation in FIR that accused persons formed unlawful assembly, common object whereof was to belabour and kill deceased – In a case where offence is committed by an unlawful assembly, each member of assembly is equally responsible for acts committed in furtherance of unlawful object – There was absolutely no justifiable reason to grant bail to accused respondents – Impugned order set aside and bail granted to respondents accused by High Court cancelled. (Paras 20, 25, 26, 27 and 32)
Facts of the case:
The original complainant is assailing the order dated 1st March, 2023, passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2023, whereby respondents were granted bail in connection with Crime registered 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 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(g) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Findings of Court:
Respondents-accused shall surrender before trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which trial Court shall take appropriate steps to secure their custody during pendency of trial. Trial Court directed to conclude trial within a period of one year from today.
Result : Appeal allowed with observations.
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 family and the accused persons with respect to a right of way over agricultural land. The said dispute was pending adjudication, and an order of stay had been granted by the High Court in relation thereto. On 19th August, 2022, at around 10:00 A.M., her husband, Shri Namdev Sonavane, left home to drop their daughter to the school on his motorcycle. At about 11:00 A.M., the complainant was informed by her brother-in-law, Sunil, that he had received a call from one Sainath Uttam Bacchav informing that six persons, including respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were assaulting her husband with iron rods and sticks near the shop of Tilekar on the Shirdi-Lasalgaon Road. Thereafter, the complainant, her brother-in- law Sunil and Sunil’s wife Usha proceeded to the spot, where they saw Shri Namdev lying on ground and being assaulted with iron rods and sticks. When the complainant and her relatives attempted to intervene, they too were assaulted. According to the complainant, respondent No. 1, armed with an iron rod and Respondent No. 2 armed with a stick, assaulted Shri Namdev. The complainant further alleged that during the course of the incident, respondent Nos. 1 & 2, along with one another accused, removed their pants and uttered threatening and abusive words to the complainant in the name of her caste.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR bearing No. 322 of 2022 came to be registered at P.S. Kopargaon Taluka for offences under Sections 354, 294, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 509, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427 of 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 SC/ST Act.
7. Shri Namdev Sonavane passed away on 24th August, 2022 while undergoing treatment and thus, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added to the case.
II. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT
8. Learned counsel representing the appellant contended that the High Court, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents-accused and granting them bail, proceeded on extraneous considerations. It was urged that there are specific and clear allegations in the FIR based on the statement of the appellant, who herself sustained injuries in the incident, to the effect that respondent No.1 Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane was armed with an iron rod and respondent No.2 Ganesh Shankar Gawand was armed with a stick and that they actively participated in the fatal assault made upon the deceased Namdev by the members of the unlawful assembly, the objective whereof was to murder the victim and commit caste based violence with the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that notwithstanding such specific role being attributed, the High Court granted bail to the respondents- accused on the flimsy and faulty assumption that the injured witness could not state with certainty as to
Cancellation of bail – There is clear distinction between cancellation of bail on the considerations provided under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. and reversal of order of bail by superior Court.
(1) Application for cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than challenging order passed by High Court/Appellate Court releasing accused on bail.(2) Bail cannot be granted without looking....
(1) Grant of bail – Cancellation of bail on the ground of violation of Section 15A(5) of SC/ST Act, 1989 is justified only in cases where no notice of bail proceedings was served upon victim, victim ....
(1) Bail – For grant or denial of bail, nature of crime has huge relevancy – Importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined.(2) Cancellation of bail – Bail once....
The court emphasized the principle of parity in bail applications, allowing bail when co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, highlighting the absence of evidence suggesting tampering.
(1) Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail, as in case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution, is not unstructured.(2) Parity while granting bail must ....
(1) Victim’s right to appeal – Right of a victim under amended Cr.P.C. are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights – These rights are totally independent, incomparable, and ar....
(1) Once bail has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation.(2) Bail can be revoked by a superior court when previous court granting bail has ignored relevant mate....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
