Dismissed¶27

Dashrath Vitthal Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jan 2026BA/4472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; Dashrath Vitthal Shinde; BA 4472 of 2024; Bombay High Court; Shivkumar Dige J.; Section 302 IPC murder; C.R. No. 3 of 2023 Kamsheth Police Station Pune; sickle assault on wife; suspicion of character; 14-year-old son eyewitness; three years in custody; trial commenced, 5 of 21 witnesses examined; restraint in granting bail after trial commencement; Paras Ram Vishnoi v. Director CBI distinguished; X v. State of Rajasthan SLP(Crl.) 13378 of 2024 applied; Trial Court asked to expedite; order corrected 13.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the bail application was rejected and the Trial Court was requested to expedite the trial. ¶27

Dashrath Vitthal Shinde vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None granted; the bail application was rejected and the Trial Court was requested to expedite the trial.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the applicant, in custody around three years with the murder trial underway (five of 21 witnesses examined), notwithstanding the direct eyewitness evidence against him and the risk to prosecution witnesses.

¶20

Court's answer

There is direct evidence against the applicant, and the precedent cited by the applicant's counsel (Paras Ram Vishnoi v. Director, CBI) is not applicable because the facts of that case differ from the present case.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Applying the Apex Court ratio cited by the APP: once trial has commenced in cases like murder or rape and the prosecution has begun examining witnesses, the Court should exercise restraint in considering the accused's bail application; on this basis the bail application was rejected.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Shivkumar Dige, J.; order dated 2nd February 2026): regular bail application of Dashrath Vitthal Shinde, accused under S. 302 IPC in C.R. No. 3 of 2023 (Kamsheth Police Station, Pune) of murdering his wife with a sickle on her head on 08.01.2023 on suspicion of her character, REJECTED. The court noted that the applicant's 14-year-old son witnessed the incident, that the applicant had been in custody around three years, that the trial showed no progress with five of 21 witnesses examined, and that there is direct evidence against the applicant. Paras Ram Vishnoi v. Director, CBI (Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021), cited for the applicant, was held inapplicable as the facts differed. Applying the Supreme Court ratio in X v. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024) — that once trial has commenced in cases like murder or rape and the prosecution has started examining witnesses, the Court should exercise restraint in considering bail — the application was rejected and the Trial Court requested to expedite the trial. Order corrected as per speaking-to-minutes dated 13.03.2026.

¶1

2-BA-4472-2024 (corrected).doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4472 OF 2024

¶5

Dashrath Vitthal Shinde ….Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra …..Respondent

¶6

Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w. Mr. Taraq Sayed and Mr. Harsh Shah, Advocates for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 2^nd FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 3 of 2023 registered with Kamsheth Police Station, Pune, for the

¶11

offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

¶12

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. On 08.01.2023, around 8:00 p.m., the applicant assaulted the deceased with sickle on her head and murdered her on the ground of suspicion of her character.

¶13

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than two years. The incident occurred

¶14

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 13.03.2026 Page 1 of 3

¶15

2-BA-4472-2024 (corrected).doc

¶16

S.S.Kilaje

¶17

suddenly. The applicant had no intention to kill the deceased. Though the applicant is behind bars for more than two years, trial is not concluded and requested to allow the application. She relied on Paras Ram Vishnoi Versus

¶18

The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) 3610 of 2020).

¶19

It is contention of learned APP that incident is witnessed by 14 years old son of the applicant. The applicant brutally assaulted his wife with sickle and murdered her on ground of suspecting her character. The trial is in progress. Five witnesses have been examined. The trial will be concluded in couple of months. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses as all the prosecution witnesses are relatives of the applicant and requested to reject the application. He relied on X Versus State of Rajasthan and Anr. in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024

¶20

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. The son of the applicant has witnessed the incident of assault by the applicant on his wife with sickle. The deceased was brutally murdered. The applicant is behind bars for around three years. There is no progress in the trial. Out of 21 witnesses, prosecution has examined five witnesses.

¶21

It is contention of learned APP that prosecution is not going to

¶22

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 13.03.2026 Page 2 of 3

¶23

2-BA-4472-2024 (corrected).doc

¶24

S.S.Kilaje

¶25

examine all witnesses and trial will be completed within couple of months as some of the prosecution witnesses are the relatives of the applicant. If the applicant is released on bail, he may threaten prosecution witnesses. In my view, there is direct evidence against the applicant. I have gone through the case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. The facts of cited case and present case are different hence, not applicable. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case law cited by the learned APP is squarely applicable to the present case, crystallising the legal principle that once trial has commenced in cases like murder, rape and prosecution starts examining witnesses, the Court should exercise restraint in considering bail application of the accused. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The bail application is rejected. (ii) The Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.

¶28

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: KILAJE 2026.03.1613:34:40 +0700

¶29

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶30

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 13.03.2026 Page 3 of 3

Dashrath Vitthal Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrath Vitthal Shinde v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hanumant Vasudev Mohite vs The State of Maharashtra

Hanumant Vasudev Mohite vs The State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Pandurang Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra

Omkar Tukaram Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Vasnat Balgude vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jitesh @ Munna Ravindra Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra