Allowed¶30

Omkar Rajendra Mane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Mar 2026BA/678/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted; prolonged incarceration over 21 months; no progress in trial; no antecedents; parity with co-accused already on bail; Section 307 IPC attempt to murder; sword assault on informant's son dated 15.06.2024; Arms Act Sections 4(25), 5(27); Maharashtra Police Act Section 37(1)(3) read with 135; P.R.Bond Rs.30,000/-; conditions against tampering and witness contact; Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station Pune; Bombay High Court, Shivkumar Dige, J., 27 March 2026.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail in Crime No. 500 of 2024 on executing 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 and when required and refraining from tampering with evidence or influencing/contacting the complainant, witnesses or persons concerned with the case. ¶30

Omkar Rajendra Mane vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Omkar Rajendra Mane, arrested in Crime No. 500 of 2024 (Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune), should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶12

Court's answer

The applicant is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 500 of 2024 on executing a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Bail granted principally because the applicant has been in custody for more than 21 months with no progress in the trial, has no antecedents, and the trial will take time to conclude.

¶21

Key takeaways

Parity with the co-accused, against whom similar allegations were made and who has already been released on bail, weighed in favour of granting bail.ratio¶19
Condition of bail: the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.ratio¶27
Condition of bail: the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Shivkumar Dige, J.) allowed regular bail to Omkar Rajendra Mane in Crime No. 500 of 2024, Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune (Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149 read with 34 IPC 1860; Sections 4(25) and 5(27) Indian Arms Act; Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 Maharashtra Police Act), arising from an alleged sword assault on the first informant's son on 15.06.2024. Bail was granted after over 21 months' incarceration with no progress in the trial, the applicant having no antecedents and a co-accused facing similar allegations already being released on bail. Conditions: P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, attendance at the concerned police station as and when required, and no tampering with evidence or influencing/contacting the complainant or witnesses. Observations confined to the bail stage; Trial Court to decide uninfluenced.

¶1

13-BA-678-2026 (CR).doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 678 OF 2026

¶4

Omkar Rajendra Mane ….Applicant

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

¶7

Mr. Vipul V. Dushing along with Mr. Ashraf Kazi, Mr. Prajyot Shinde, Mr.Pranay Mahajan, Mr. Ashish Saxena and Mr. Swapnil Kshirsagar, Advocate for Applicant.

¶8

Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.

¶9

WPSI-Priyanka Nikam, Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune, present.

¶10

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 27^th MARCH, 2026.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 500 of 2024 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 4(25) and 5(27) of Indian Arms Act and Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶13

It is prosecution’s case that on 15th June 2024, the applicant and accused assaulted the son of the first informant with sword with the

¶14

intention to kill him.

¶15

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.04.01 10:57:53 +0530

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

13-BA-678-2026 (CR).doc

¶18

Shubhada S Kadam

¶19

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than 21 months, yet there is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. The co-accused, against whom similar allegations are made, has been released on bail. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶20

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant was carrying a sword and he assaulted the injured and his friend with the sword. It shows his involvement in the crime. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

¶21

I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. The applicant is behind bars for more than 21 months. There is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. It may take time to conclude the trial. The co-accused, against whom similar allegations are made, has been released on bail. Considering these facts I pass the following order:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 500 of 2024 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth 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.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

13-BA-678-2026 (CR).doc

¶26

Shubhada S Kadam

¶27

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

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to

¶29

influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Omkar Rajendra Mane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkar Rajendra Mane 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pramod Ankush Pawar @ Mangesh @ Pappu Arun Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Gaurav Keshav Ingole vs State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Bhikanrao Chavan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

National Spot Exchange Ltd. vs The Central Bureau of Investigation Bank Securities and Fraud Cell

Sagar Vijay Orase vs the State of Maharashtra

Umesh Gopinath Bhavar vs the State of Maharashtra