Sumit Kamlakar Dabhade vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sumit Kamlakar Dabhade vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 1087 of 2024 (Pimpri PS, Pune) on executing a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; conditions: (a) attend the concerned police station as and when required; (b) not enter the jurisdiction of Pimpri Police Station until the recording of the evidence of the first informant, except for attending court dates; (c) not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 1087 of 2024 (Pimpri PS, Pune) — prosecuted under BNS 2023, Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act, Criminal Law Amendment Act and MCOC Act 1999 provisions arising out of an alleged sickle attack on the first informant — notwithstanding the APP's objections founded on antecedents, alleged gang involvement and risk of absconding or threatening prosecution witnesses, in view of the informant having suffered no injury, the applicant's prolonged detention, and the absence of trial progress.

Court's answer

Although the prosecution alleged an attempt to kill the first informant with a sickle, this court found that the first informant was not injured in the alleged assault — a fact material to the bail decision.

Ratio / Principle

Pre-trial detention of more than one year and three months, coupled with the absence of any progress in the trial, weighed in favour of enlarging the applicant on regular bail.

Key takeaways

The observations in this bail order were made solely for the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court must decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by those observations.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Bail Application No.10 of 2026 — Regular bail granted to Sumit Kamlakar Dabhade in Crime No. 1087/2024 (Pimpri PS, Pune), registered under ss.109, 351(3), 352, 3(5) BNS 2023, s.4(25)(27) Arms Act, ss.37(1)(3)/135/142 Maharashtra Police Act, ss.3 & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and ss.3(1)(ii), 3(4) MCOC Act 1999. Though the prosecution alleged that on 5.12.2024 the applicant and co-accused attacked the first informant with a sickle to kill her, the court (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) observed that the first informant was not injured; combined with the applicant's detention of over one year and three months and the stalled trial, he was released on a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with matching sureties, subject to conditions restricting entry into Pimpri police limits until the informant's evidence is recorded and barring tampering with or influencing of witnesses. The APP had opposed bail citing three antecedents and alleged gang-leader involvement. Bail-order observations expressly declared non-binding on the Trial Court (para 6).

22-BA-10-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2026

Sumit Kamlakar Dabhade ….Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

Mr. Shubham Sane i/b. Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.

API-Madhumati Shinde, Pimpri Police Station, present.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 9^th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 1087 of 2024 registered with Pimpri Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 351(3), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4(25)(27) of Arms Act and Section 37(1)(3), Section 135 and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, Sections 3 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.03.12 10:36:43 +0530

It is prosecution’s case that on 5^th December 2024, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant with sickle with the intention to kill her. The applicant and co-accused also tried to run over

Page 1 of 3

22-BA-10-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

the niece of the first informant with motorcycle with the intention to kill her.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant was not injured in the said assault. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and three months. There is no progress in the trial and to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has three antecedents. He tried to assault the first informant with sickle with the intention to kill her. The incident was committed along with a gang leader. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he requested to reject the application.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge sheet and documents produced on record. Though there are allegations of attempt to kill the first informant, it appears that the first informant was not injured in the said assault. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and three months and there is no progress in the trial, Considering these facts, I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 1087 of 2024 registered with Pimpri Station, District Pune, on executing

Page 2 of 3

22-BA-10-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

(iii) The applicant shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Pimpri Police Station until the recording of the evidence of the first informant, except for attending the court dates.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3