Allowed¶31

Kundan Vijay Sing v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jan 2026BA/3570/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regular bail; principle of parity; co-accused released on bail; dacoity at jewellery shop; fatal pistol shot; murder of shop employee; S.302 IPC; S.307 IPC; S.120-B IPC; S.34 IPC; Arms Act Ss.3 & 25; Maharashtra Police Act Ss.37(1) r/w 135; Kondhwa Police Station Pune; C.R.No.750 of 2018; three years in custody; no progress in trial; P.R. bond Rs.30,000; Bombay High Court; Shivkumar Dige, J.; N.R. Borkar, J.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail in C.R.No.750 of 2018 (Kondhwa Police Station, District Pune) on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; applicant to attend the concerned police station as and when required, and not to tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case. ¶31

Kundan Vijay Sing vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in custody for about three years with no progress in the trial and facing allegations similar to those against a co-accused already released on bail, is entitled to regular bail on the principle of parity.

¶19

Court's answer

The main allegations, including firing at the employee from a pistol, are against the co-accused, who has already been released on bail by this Court (N.R. Borkar, J.); there are no allegations that the applicant fired from the pistol; accordingly the applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

¶21

Key takeaways

The observations in the order are made only for the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by these observations.obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Shivkumar Dige, J., 19 January 2026 — Criminal Bail Application No. 3570 of 2025: Regular bail granted on the principle of parity to Kundan Vijay Sing, accused in C.R.No.750 of 2018 of Kondhwa Police Station, District Pune, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 120-B and 34 IPC, Sections 3 & 25 Arms Act and Sections 37(1) r/w 135 Maharashtra Police Act, arising from an alleged dacoity at a jewellery shop on 21.11.2018 in which the first informant's employee was shot dead. The applicant had been in custody for about three years with no progress in the trial; the co-accused alleged to have fired the fatal shot from the pistol had already been released on bail by this Court (N.R. Borkar, J.), and no allegation of firing was made against the applicant. Bail ordered on a P.R. bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions of attending the police station as required and not tampering with evidence or contacting the complainant or witnesses. Observations expressly confined to the bail decision; trial to proceed on merits uninfluenced.

¶1

66-BA-3570-2025 (CR).doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3570 OF 2025

¶5

Kundan Vijay Sing

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

_________________________________________________________________ Mr. Shailesh Kharat, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.

¶9

API – Mr. Amit Kumbhar, Kondhva Police Station, Pune City present.

¶10

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:2026.01.22 KILAJE 17:22:17+0700

¶11

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 19^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No.750 of 2018 registered with Kondhwa Police Station, District Pune, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), Sections 3 & 25 of Arms Act, Sections 37(1) r/w. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶14

It is prosecution’s case that on 21.11.2018, at around 1:30 p.m., applicant and co-accused committed dacoity at jewellery shop of first informant and fired gunshot from pistol at employee of the first informant and thereby murdered him.

¶15

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

66-BA-3570-2025 (CR).doc

¶18

S.S.Kilaje

¶19

applicant is behind bars for around three years. He has no antecedents. There is no progress in the trial. The co-accused having similar allegations has been released on bail. Hence, the applicant is entitled for bail on principle of parity and requested to allow the application.

¶20

It is contention of learned APP that applicant was a part of group who murdered the employee of first employee. If he is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

¶21

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. The main allegations are against the co-accused who fired at employee of first informant from pistol. He has been released on bail by this Court (Coram : N.R.Borkar, J.). There are no allegations against the applicant of firing from pistol at the employee. Considering these facts, the applicant is entitled for bail on principle of parity and I pass following order.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

i. The applicant be released on bail in C.R.No.750 of 2018 registered with Kondhwa Police Station, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- on furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶24

ii. The applicant shall attend the concerned police station

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

66-BA-3570-2025 (CR).doc

¶27

S.S.Kilaje

¶28

as and when required.

¶29

iii. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant,

¶30

witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Kundan Vijay Sing v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Vijay Sing v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Navnath Mahadeo Dhotre vs the State of Maharashtra

Henna Bharat Shah vs Union of India

Sunny Krushna Dhusiya vs the State of Maharashtra

Henna Bharat Shah vs Union of India

Santosh Popat Thorat vs State of Maharashtra

Lalitkumar Dayanand Sharma and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra