Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Omkar Tukaram Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Bombay HC
2026
Omkar Tukaram Shinde vs the State of MaharashtraOmkar Tukaram Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Allowed¶¶30

Omkar Tukaram Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jan 2026BA/1069/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court bail order (Shivkumar Dige, J., 14-01-2026); Criminal Bail Application No. 1069 of 2025; Omkar Tukaram Shinde v. State of Maharashtra; regular bail allowed; C.R.No. 580 of 2023, Mahalunge M.I.D.C. PS Pune; IPC Ss.307, 302, 323, 504 r/w S.34; Maharashtra Police Act Ss.37(1), 135; murder/attempted murder charge; assault with wooden rod over delayed factory-gate opening (01.10.2023); grounds: sudden fight, custody exceeding two years without charge framing, protracted trial expected, parity with released co-accused; P.R.Bond Rs.30,000/-; conditions on witness contact and evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in C.R.No. 580 of 2023 on executing a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to attending the concerned police station as and when required and refraining from tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or contacting the complainant, witnesses or others connected with the case; Trial Court directed not to be influenced by observations in this order.

Why is it important?

Bail is granted because the incident occurred out of a sudden fight during a quarrel over the delayed opening of the factory gate; the applicant has been behind bars for more than two years with the charge not yet framed; concluding the trial will take time; and a co-accused with similar allegations has already been released on bail. ¶¶20

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant released on bail in C.R.No. 580 of 2023 on executing a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to attending the concerned police station as and when required and refraining from tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or contacting the complainant, witnesses or others connected with the case; Trial Court directed not to be influenced by observations in this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in C.R.No. 580 of 2023 (Mahalunge M.I.D.C. Police Station, Pune) for offences under Sections 307, 302, 323, 504 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 37(1), 135 Maharashtra Police Act.

Court's answer

Bail is granted because the incident occurred out of a sudden fight during a quarrel over the delayed opening of the factory gate; the applicant has been behind bars for more than two years with the charge not yet framed; concluding the trial will take time; and a co-accused with similar allegations has already been released on bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail granted to Omkar Tukaram Shinde in C.R.No. 580 of 2023 (Mahalunge M.I.D.C. Police Station, Pune; Sections 307, 302, 323, 504 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 37(1), 135 Maharashtra Police Act). Prosecution alleged that on 01.10.2023 the applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased security guard with a wooden rod after he delayed opening the factory gate. Granting bail, the Court noted the incident occurred out of sudden fight, the applicant had been in custody over two years with charge not framed, the trial would take time, and a co-accused with similar allegations was already on bail. Conditions: P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties, attendance at the police station as required, no tampering with evidence or influencing/contacting witnesses; Trial Court told to decide independently of these observations.

A

18-BA-1069-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1069 OF 2025

Omkar Tukaram Shinde … Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:2026.01.17 KILAJE 14:41:25+0700

_________________________________________________________________ Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b. Mr. Sumit Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P.P.Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 14^th JANUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 580 of 2023 registered with Mahalunge M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 302, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Sections 37(1) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

It is prosecution’s case that on 01.10.2023, applicant and coaccused assaulted the deceased with wooden rod on the ground that deceased delayed to open the factory gate.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than two years. Yet charge has not been framed. The co-accused having similar allegations have been released on

Page 1 of 3

18-BA-1069-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

bail. The incident occurred suddenly. The applicant had no intention to kill the deceased. It may take time to conclude the trial and requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has an antecedent. He along with co-accused assaulted the deceased with wooden rod and murdered him. The applicant had intention to kill the deceased. If applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witness and requested to reject the application.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. It appears from the record that the applicant and co-accused had gone to Fateja Forging Company and when they asked the deceased, who was security guard to open the gate, he delayed to open the gate. On that ground, there was quarrel between the applicant, co-accused and deceased and during that quarrel, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased with wooden rod. It shows that incident happened out of sudden fight. The applicant is behind bars for more than two years. Yet charge is not framed. It may take time to conclude the trial. Co-accused having similar allegations has been released on bail. In view of above, I pass following order.

ORDER

i. The Applicant is released on bail in C.R.No. 580 of 2023

Page 2 of 3

18-BA-1069-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

registered with Mahalunge M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/-, on furnishing 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 tamper with evidence or attempt to influence the witnesses. The Applicant shall not contact the complainant, witnesses or any other person concerned with present case.

iv. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order and shall decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.

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

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

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in C.R.No. 580 of 2023 (Mahalunge M.I.D.C. Police Station, Pune) for offences under Sections 307, 302, 323, 504 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 37(1), 135 Maharashtra Police Act.¶¶12
The court held
Bail is granted because the incident occurred out of a sudden fight during a quarrel over the delayed opening of the factory gate; the applicant has been behind bars for more than two years with the charge not yet framed; concluding the trial will take time; and a co-accused with similar allegations has already been released on bail.ratio¶¶20

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Indian Penal Code, 1860307, 302, 323, 504 read with 34¶¶12
Maharashtra Police Act37(1), 135¶¶12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Regular bail sought in C.R.No. 580 of 2023 registered with Mahalunge M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Pune.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Prosecution alleges that on 01.10.2023 the applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased (a security guard) with a wooden rod after he delayed opening the factory gate.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
Applicant in custody for more than two years; charge yet to be framed.¶¶14
Prior proceeding
Chargesheet and documents on record perused by the court.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
A co-accused with similar allegations had already been released on bail (parity relied upon).¶¶20

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Omkar Tukaram Shinde¶¶5
Aniket Nikam, Sumit Patil
respondent
The State of Maharashtra¶¶7
P.P.Jadhav

Coram

AI extract

SHIVKUMAR DIGEauthor¶¶10

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 5 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 6 Mar 2025
Case no.: BA/1069/2025
CNR: HCBM010137002025
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: Criminal Bail Application

All orders in this case

11 orders share this CNR

13 Mar 2025Order 1 · Shivkumar Dige
24 Apr 2025Order 2 · Shivkumar Dige
8 May 2025Order 3 · Shivkumar Dige
25 Jun 2025Order 4 · Shivkumar Dige
4 Sept 2025Order 5 · Shivkumar Dige
1 Oct 2025Order 6 · Shivkumar Dige
4 Nov 2025Order 7 · Shivkumar Dige
26 Nov 2025Order 8 · Shivkumar Dige
17 Dec 2025Order 9 · Shivkumar Dige
5 Jan 2026Order 10 — this page · Shivkumar Dige
14 Jan 2026Order 11 · Shivkumar Dige

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Shivkumar Dige

Hanumant Vasudev Mohite vs The State of Maharashtra
2 Jan 2026
Hanumant Vasudev Mohite vs The State of Maharashtra
31 Dec 2025
Vishnu Pandurang Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra
29 Dec 2025
Somnath Vasnat Balgude vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.
5 Jan 2026
Jitesh @ Munna Ravindra Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra
5 Jan 2026
Arjun Suresh Piwal vs the State of Maharashtra
5 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

Omkar Tukaram Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra, BA/1069/2025 (BOM), decided on 5 January 2026.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Indian Penal Code, 1860307, 302, 323, 504 read with 34
Maharashtra Police Act37(1), 135

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Regular bail sought in C.R.No. 580 of 2023 registered with Mahalunge M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Pune.
Prosecution alleges that on 01.10.2023 the applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased (a security guard) with a wooden rod after he delayed opening the factory gate.

View full history

Bench / Coram

SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Parties & counsel