Once the High Court noted multiple injuries on the deceased’s body there was no reason to grant bail to the accused

Appeal

Appeal against order granting bail by the High Court

3. The original complainant, Shobha Namdev Sonavane, is before us for assailing the order dated 1st March, 2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad 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 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

Brief facts

Respondent no. 2 assaulted the deceased with iron rod and abuse him by using his caste name

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.

FIR

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.

Section 302 IPC added

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.

Analysis

19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on record.

Distinction between cancellation of bail and reversal of an order of bail. Present case is reversal of an order of bail

20. We make it clear that there is a clear distinction between cancellation of bail on the considerations provided under Section 439(2) CrPC (corresponding Section 483(3) BNSS) and reversal of an order of bail by the superior Court. While cancellation should only be resorted to in cases where the accused misuses the liberty of bail granted to him or tempers with the evidence. On the other hand, the order granting bail can be interfered with by the superior Court considering the nature and gravity of the offences; if the order granting bail ignores the relevant material available on record or that the same is based on extraneous considerations. The present is a case in the second category.

Previous judgments on bail parameters

21. This court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., relying upon an earlier judgment in the case of Ajwar v. Waseem, observed as follows:

“18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem [Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 320] in the following paras : (SCC pp. 783-84, paras 26-28)

“26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974] ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] ; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368] ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] ; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] ; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425] ; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558]]

27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order……”

[Emphasis supplied]

22. Also, this court in the case of Victim ‘X’ v. State of Bihar & Anr., while setting aside the order granting bail to a person accused of committing grave offences, inter alia, under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observed as follows:

“24. It is trite that bail once granted should not be cancelled ordinarily, but where the facts are so grave that they shake the conscience of the Court; and where the release of the accused on bail would have an adverse impact on the society, the Courts are not powerless and are expected to exercise jurisdiction conferred by law to cancel such bail orders so as to subserve the ends of justice. The present one is precisely a case of such nature.” [Emphasis Supplied]

23. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, we now proceed to examine whether the reasons assigned by the High Court for grant of bail can withstand judicial scrutiny.

25. The prior litigation between the parties, which has been treated as one of the grounds for granting bail by the High Court can work both ways. This litigation could, very well, have fuelled the respondents-accused with the motive to launch the assault. As per the FIR, there was a concerted attack by the six accused persons who, not only abused and insulted the complainant and her deceased husband referring to their caste but also launched an all-out attack causing multiple injuries to the deceased by iron rods and sticks. When the 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.

26. The FIR was registered applying the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC amongst others. There is clear allegation in the FIR that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, the common object whereof was to belabor and kill the deceased Namdev.

27. In this backdrop, clearly, the approach adopted by the High Court at the stage of considering bail recording that the prosecution was required to indicate the individual role of the accused in the incident, and that failure to do so, entitled the respondents-accused to bail, is erroneous on the face of record. In a case where the offence is committed by an unlawful assembly, each member of the assembly is equally responsible for the acts committed in furtherance of the unlawful object. The common object of the assembly being to assault the deceased Namdev on account of the pending civil litigation, each member of the unlawful assembly was thus equally liable and responsible for the offending acts. We may note that the looking to the large number of injuries, caused to the deceased (referred to infra), even the plea of over implication was not tenable. 

29. A careful perusal of injury Nos. 3 and 7 would clearly indicate that multiple injuries were noticed by the autopsy surgeon. In that backdrop, the observation of the High Court that the accused were six in number and they inflicted only eight injuries and that therefore it could not be ascertained whose weapon caused the head injury, is absolutely irrelevant and could not have been a ground to grant bail.

30. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that the provisions of rioting, unlawful assembly having been invoked, the prosecution was under no obligation to identify and fix the individual acts of the accused. So far as the observation made by the High Court regarding the time gap between the date of the incident and the date of death of the deceased Namdev is concerned, the said aspect would have to be gone into by the trial Court at the time of appreciating the medical evidence.

Once high court noted multiple injuries on the deceased body there was no reason to grant bail to accused

31. It needs to be noted that even the High Court itself has observed that the trial Court would have to consider whether there was any intention and knowledge to kill deceased Namdev. Once the High Court itself noted the multiple injuries on the body of the deceased with injury No. 8 causing deep rooted cerebral damage by blunt trauma, there was absolutely no justifiable reason to grant bail to the accused respondents.

Conclusion

Bail granted to the accused by High Court is cancelled

32. As an upshot of the above discussion, the impugned order does not stand scrutiny and is hereby set aside. The bail granted to the respondents-accused by the High Court is cancelled. The respondents-accused shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate steps to secure their custody during the pendency of the trial. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today.

33. We make it clear that the observations made above are only restricted to the consideration of this appeal for cancellation of bail and shall have no bearing on the outcome of the trial and the trial Court shall proceed with the case uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. We further grant liberty to the accused to renew their prayer for bail once the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the medical jurist is recorded by the trial Court.

Appeal allowed

34. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.     

References

Judgment references

• Order dated 1st March, 2023, by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad: This was the original order in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2023 that granted bail to the respondents, which was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court.
• Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) 4 SCC 172: Cited by the Court to highlight that a superficial application of bail parameters can undermine the gravity of an offence and weaken public faith in the judiciary.
• Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: Quoted extensively regarding the relevant factors a court must consider when deciding whether to grant bail in cases involving serious criminal offences.
• Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525: Cited within the Ajwar excerpt as a foundational case for bail considerations.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528: Cited within the Ajwar excerpt regarding factors for granting bail in serious crimes.
• Masroor v. State of U.P. (2009) 14 SCC 286: Referenced in relation to the overall desirability of releasing an accused on bail.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496: Cited regarding the court’s duty to look into the gravity of the offence before granting bail.
• Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 527: Referenced as part of the established parameters for judicial scrutiny in bail matters.
• Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129: Cited regarding the probability of tampering with witnesses or repeating an offence.
• Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118: Quoted to affirm that while bail should not be cancelled mechanically, an unreasoned or perverse order is open to interference by a superior court.
• Victim ‘XX’ v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2025) INSC 877: Cited to emphasize that courts are expected to cancel bail orders when the facts are so grave they shake the conscience of the Court or have an adverse impact on society.

Acts and Sections

Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), 1860

• Section 143: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 144: Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon.
• Section 147: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148: Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.
• Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 294: Obscene acts and songs.
• Section 302: Punishment for murder (added after the victim passed away).
• Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 326: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 354: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
• Section 427: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.
• Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 509: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

• Section 3(1)(g): Wrongfully occupying or cultivating land owned by a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
• Section 3(1)(r): Intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a SC/ST in any place within public view.
• Section 3(1)(s): Abusing any member of a SC/ST by caste name in any place within public view.
• Section 3(1)(w): Touching a SC/ST woman without her consent or using words/gestures of a sexual nature.
• Section 3(2)(v): Committing any offence under the IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing such person is a member of a SC/ST.
• Section 3(2)(va): Committing any offence specified in the Schedule against a person or property knowing such person is a member of a SC/ST.

Procedural Laws

• Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Regarding the power of the High Court or Court of Session to direct that any person who has been released on bail be arrested and committed to custody.
• Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS): The corresponding new provision for the cancellation of bail.
• Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC: Relating to statements made by witnesses to the police and recorded by a Magistrate, respectively.

Party

Shobha Namdev Sonavane vs. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Others , Criminal Appeal No(s). 1100 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 12440 of 2023) - 2026 INSC 181 - February 23, 2026 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta.