Baliram Chandulal Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Loni Dist. Amravati and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Baliram Chandulal Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Loni Dist. Amravati and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned bail-rejection order dated 09.05.2024 quashed and set aside; Appellant to be released on bail in Crime No.67/2023 on P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to weekly Monday reporting at the concerned Police Station (5 p.m. to 6 p.m.) and a non-tampering condition; fees of the appointed advocate for Respondent No.2 quantified at Rs.7,500/- payable by the Legal Aid Services Authority.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellant, whose regular bail was rejected by the trial Court, should be enlarged on bail in this appeal under Section 14-A of the SCST Act.

Ratio / Principle

On the ground that the sole eye-witness did not support the prosecution, there were no incriminating C.A. Reports regarding the recovery, the Appellant had been in custody since 02.03.2023, and only 4 of 27 cited witnesses had been examined, the Appellant could be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.

Key takeaways

The Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 rejecting regular bail is quashed and set aside.ratio¶¶16
The Appellant is to be released on bail in Crime No.67/2023 (Police Station Loni, District Amravati) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 3(2) of the SCST Act on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.ratio¶¶17
Condition of bail: the Appellant shall attend the concerned Police Station once a week on every Monday between 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. until further orders.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 allowed. The sole eye-witness (Tejas Chinche), examined before the trial Court on 24.11.2025, did not support the prosecution; there were no C.A. Reports showing that the recovery at the instance of the Appellant was incriminating; the Appellant was in custody since 02.03.2023 and only 4 of 27 cited witnesses had been examined. The trial Court's order dated 09.05.2024 rejecting regular bail in Special Case No.155/2023 was quashed and set aside, and the Appellant was ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.67/2023 (Police Station Loni, District Amravati) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 3(2) of the SCST Act on a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to weekly Monday reporting at the Police Station (5 p.m. to 6 p.m.) and a condition not to tamper with the prosecution's case.

1 apeal547.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.547/2024

(Baliram Chandulal Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer Loni, Amravati and another)

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. Atharva C. Khadse, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. S.S. Dhote, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate (appointed) for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATED: 6.3.2026.

Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

This is an Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SCST Act”) as the regular bail of the Appellant came to be rejected by the learned trial Court on 09.05.2024 in Special Case No.155/2023.

The case of prosecution is that, the Appellant committed murder of the First Informant’s brother on 02.03.2023. During the course of investigation, the statement of witnesses were recorded including sole eye-witness namely Tejas Chinche. The said sole eye-witness Tejas Chinche was examined before the learned trial Court on 24.11.2025. He did not support the case of prosecution. There are no C.A. Reports to show that, the recovery at the instance of the Appellant was incriminating. The Appellant is behind bars since 02.03.2023. The prosecution has cited 27 witnesses. Till date four (4) witnesses are examined. Considering these aspects of the matter, the

2 apeal547.2024.odt

Appellant can be enlarged on bail by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

i) The Appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 09.05.2024 is quashed and set aside.

iii) The Appellant be released on bail in Crime No.67/2023 registered with Police Station Loni, District Amravati for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 3(2) of the SCST Act on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

iv) The Appellant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a week on every Monday in between 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. until further orders.

v) The Appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution’s case in any manner.

vi) The fees of the learned Advocate appointed for the Respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.7,500/-. The same be paid by the Legal Aid Services Authority.

vii) The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)

Tambaskar.

Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/03/2026 18:23:35