Mungya @ Rutik Ratan Rokade vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

Mungya @ Rutik Ratan Rokade vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on bail in Crime No. 346 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 not tampering with the evidence or attempting to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, alleged to have provided the pistol used in the crime to Accused No. 1, should be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 346 of 2023.

Court's answer

The allegation against the applicant is confined to his having provided the pistol used in the crime to Accused No. 1; proving that allegation requires evidence, and the applicant neither participated in the assault nor was present at the spot of the incident when it occurred.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant had been behind bars for more than two years with no progress in the trial, which would take further time to conclude; considering these facts the court granted bail.

Key takeaways

The observations in the order were 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 the observations made in this order.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Shivkumar Dige, J.), 9 March 2026: Regular bail granted to Mungya @ Rutik Ratan Rokade, an accused in Crime No. 346 of 2023 of Chikhali Pimpari Police Station, District Pune, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections 3(25) and 3(27) of the Arms Act, Section 37(1)(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. The prosecution alleged that co-accused Sonya Pansare, Sidharth Kambale and others conspired and shot dead the first informant's nephew on 22nd May 2023, and that the applicant supplied the pistol used in the crime to Accused No. 1. The court found that proving that allegation required evidence, that the applicant neither participated in the assault nor was present at the spot, and that he had been in custody for over two years with no progress in the trial. Bail was granted on a P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, conditioned on attendance at the police station as required and non-tampering with evidence or contact with the complainant and witnesses. The court clarified that its observations were made only for the purpose of granting bail and would not influence the Trial Court, which is to decide the case on its own merits.

35-BA-406-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.406 OF 2026

Mungya @ Rutik Ratan Rokade ...Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

Mr. Rahul Dhaigude along with Mr. Sanket Mane, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. A. S. Shilimkar, PSI, Chikhali 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. 346 of 2023 registered with Chikhali Pimpari Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections 3(25) (27) of the Arms Act, Section 37(1)(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM

It is prosecution’s case that on 22nd May 2023 at around 1:30 PM, co-accused Sonya Pansare and Sidharth Kambale and other co-accused hatched a conspiracy and on the day of the incident killed the nephew of the first informant by firing at him.

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

Page 1 of 3

35-BA-406-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation against the applicant is that he provided the pistol used in the crime to accused No.1. The applicant is behind bars for more than two years and there is no progress in the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application.

It is contention of the learned APP that the applicant has 11 antecedents. He was seen in CCTV footage while planning the conspiracy of the crime on 3rd June 2023 and 4th June 2023. The incident took place on 22nd May 2023. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge sheet and documents produced on record. The allegation against the applicant is that he provided the pistol used in the crime to accused No.1. To prove the allegations against the applicant, evidence is required. The applicant did not participate in the assault nor was he present at the spot of the incident when the incident occurred. The applicant is behind bars for more than two years. There is no progress in the trial. It may take time to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass the following order.

Page 2 of 3

35-BA-406-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 346 of 2023 registered with Chikhali Pimpari Police Station, District Pune, on executing 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 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