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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail in Crime No. 625 of 2023 (Pimpri Police Station, District Pune) on executing 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; applicant shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Krishna Dhondiram Shinde is entitled to regular bail in Crime No. 625 of 2023 registered with Pimpri Police Station, District Pune.

Court's answer

The applicant is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 625 of 2023 registered with Pimpri Police Station, District Pune, on executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant's name was not mentioned in the FIR, which weighed in favour of granting bail.

Key takeaways

Although the applicant's name appeared in the first informant's supplementary statement recorded about 20 days after the incident, no specific role was attributed to him therein.ratio¶16
The applicant's prolonged custody of more than 2 years 9 months, absence of progress in the trial, lack of antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial will take time weighed in favour of bail.ratio¶16
Since a co-accused against whom similar allegations are made has been released on bail, the applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail granted — Murder and organised-crime charges (ss. 302, 120-B, 201, 143, 147, 149 IPC 1860; ss. 4, 25, 27 Arms Act 1959; ss. 37(1), 135 Maharashtra Police Act 1951; ss. 3(1)(ii), 3(4) MCOCA 1999) — Crime No. 625 of 2023, Pimpri Police Station, Pune — prosecution case that applicant and co-accused murdered the deceased on 9th June 2023 for providing information to police — applicant's name absent from FIR; introduced about 20 days later via first informant's supplementary statement attributing no specific role to him — custody exceeding 2 years 9 months with no progress in trial — no antecedents — co-accused with similar allegations already released — bail granted on principle of parity — P.R.Bond Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties — conditions: attendance at police station as required; no tampering with evidence or influencing/contacting complainant or witnesses — observations confined to bail stage; Trial Court to decide case on own merits uninfluenced thereby (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.).

48-BA-991-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 991 OF 2026 Krishna Dhondiram Shinde ….Applicant versus The State Of Maharashtra ….Respondent

Mr.Kuldeep U Nikam, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State. PSI-Ganesh Patawe, Sant Tukaram Nagara Police Station, Pune, present.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 6^th APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 625 of 2023 registered with Pimpri Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, , Sections 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4)of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

It is prosecution’s case that on 9^th June 2023, the applicant and co-accused murdered the deceased on the ground that he was providing information to the police.

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.04.07 19:25:18 +0530

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. After 20 days of the

Page 1 of 3

48-BA-991-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

incident, in the supplementary statement of the first informant, the name of the applicant is included in the present crime. There is no recovery at the instance of the applicant. The applicant is behind bars for more than 2 years 9 months, there is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. It might take time to conclude the trial. The co-accused against whom similar allegations are made, has been released on bail, hence, the applicant is entitled to bail on principle of parity and requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased and murdered him. The applicant was present at the time of the incident. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the charge-sheet and documents produced from the record. In the FIR, the name of the applicant is not mentioned. After about 20 days, the supplementary statement of the first informant is recorded and in the said statement, the name of the applicant is mentioned, but no specific role is attributed to the applicant in the said statement. The applicant is behind bars for more than 2 years and nine months. There is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. It might take time to conclude the trial. The co-

Page 2 of 3

48-BA-991-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

accused against whom similar allegations are made, has been released on bail, hence, the applicant is entitled to bail on principle of parity Considering these facts, I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 625 of 2023 registered with Pimpri 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