[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sahebrao Uttam Maliye vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. ... on 27 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4951
1
apeal191.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.191/2025
(Sahebrao Uttam Maliye Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, PS-Durgapur, Distt. Chandrapur
and another)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Atharv Khadse, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms Sneha S. Dhote, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Aniruddha Ananthakrishnan, Advocate (appointed) for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATED: 27.3.2026.
This is an Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
"SCST Act") against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the
learned trial Court rejecting the Regular Bail Application of the
Appellant in Special (Atrocity) Case No.18/2023 pending on the file
of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Chandrapur.
2. The Appellant is one of the accused in Crime No.189/2022
registered with Police Station Durgapur, District Chandrapur for the
offence punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 427, 120-B
and 212 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") read with
Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and for the offence punishable under
Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SCST Act. The prosecution's case as
noted in the impugned order is reproduced below:-
"2. It is the case of prosecution that, on 08.11.2022, at
around 5:02 am, a report was lodged by Pankaj Watekar at
the Durgapur Police Station. According to the report, on
07.11.2022, between 10:00 and 10:15 pm, Watekar, along
with Mahesh Meshram, Om Suryavanshi, and Ajay Pawar,
visited Imli Bar for drinks. Allegedly, at 10:30 pm, Watekar,
2
apeal191.2025.odt
Meshram, Ashish, and Ravi Durge left the bar, while Pawar
and Suryavanshi remained inside. Thereafter Mahesh
Meshram had called car of his friend Lala. Mahesh Meshram
was attacked by 6 to 7 individuals with weapons such as
axes, swords, farsa, and iron rods and assaulted Mahesh with
those weapons on his stomach and neck. Meshram tried to
escape and ran towards petrol pump beside Bar for saving
his life but collapsed on the road and was fatally assaulted.
The assailants also attacked Lala's car. Watekar, out of fear,
ran away from that place. Although Watekar claimed to
recognize the assailants, he didn't know their names, except
for describing one person as thin with black curly hair,
possibly named Bhagirathi. Bhagirathi and Shubham were
arrested on 08.11.2022, followed by the arrest of accused
No.3 to 10 later that day."
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the learned A.P.P.
for the State and the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
a) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that,
though the Appellant was known to the eye-witnesses, he was not
named in the F.I.R. and also in the 161 statement of the
eye-witnesses. The Appellant was named as one of the assailants in
the 164 statement of the eye-witnesses which was recorded after a
period of one month. The Test Identification Parade (TIP) was vitiated
on the ground of delay and publishing of the photographs of the
Appellant/accused in the newspaper and no precautions were taken
while producing the Appellant before the Court. The co-accused
Bandu Shahu to whom the role of hatching conspiracy is attributed
has been released on bail. The Postmortem Report shows stab injuries
and the role attributed to the Appellant is assault by Bottom. The
Postmortem Report shows stab wound which would not be caused by
the weapon which was shown in the hand of the Appellant. The
3
apeal191.2025.odt
Appellant is behind bars for a period of three (3) and half (½) years
and there is no progress in the trial. It is submitted that, the Appellant
is entitled for bail on the said ground. In support of his submissions,
he cited number of authorities wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
granted bail on the ground of long incarceration ranging from one (1)
and half (½) years to nine (9) years. He further submitted that, out of
119 dates, the Appellant was produced before the trial Court only on
19 dates. For this he placed reliance on the order dated 02.12.2025
in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.12690/2025
wherein the directions were given to the Directorate General of
Police, State of Maharashtra to direct the enquiry and take action
against the concerned persons for non-production of the accused
therein. He submitted that, the Appeal be allowed.
b) It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that, the Appellant is not
entitled for bail on the ground of parity as the Appellant had actually
participated in the crime. The co-accused Bandu Shah was not seen
on the spot of incident and, therefore, no parity is available to the
Appellant. The Appellant was one of the actual assailants. The case is
based on the statement of the eye-witnesses. The P.M. Report shows
the cause of death as death due to hemorrhagic shock by decapitation
of head and multiple injuries. The weapons used in the crime are
seized at the instance of the Appellant pursuant to disclosure
statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. There were
20 injuries on the person of deceased. The CCTV Footage and the
CDR's shows the involvement of the Appellant in the incident. The
eye-witnesses have identified the Appellant in the TIP. The grounds
raised by the Appellant on merits can only be considered after the
4
apeal191.2025.odt
evidence is led. For some dates, adjournments were sought by the
accused persons to engage Advocate and, therefore, it cannot be said
that, the trial was delayed only from the side of prosecution.
Considering the gravity of the offence, the Appeal be dismissed.
c) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.2 that, he supports the submissions made by the learned A.P.P.
4. Undisputedly, the case is based on the statement of
eye-witnesses. The Appellant has been shown as one of the assailants
by the eye-witnesses in the 164 Statement. The Appellant was put to
TIP and was identified as one of the assailants. Whether the TIP
would get vitiated and what would be the effect of not naming the
Appellant in the F.I.R., and naming him in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement, is
to be appreciated after the evidence is led. The recovery of the
weapons, which according to the learned Advocate for the Appellant
was from the open place, is shown at the instance of the Appellant.
With these aspects of the matter, I find substance in the submissions
of learned A.P.P. that ground of parity is not available to the Appellant.
5. The papers show that, by order dated 18.12.2025 the Status
Report was called from the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court
had submitted the Report dated 06.01.2026 stating that, case involves
11 accused persons and despite consistent efforts, hearing on the
Charge could not be conducted due to several unavoidable
circumstances such as accused Nos.1, 2, 3 (Appellant), 4, 5 and 7 had
not engaged defence counsel despite repeated opportunities and few
of them remained deliberately absent one after the another and on
certain occasions the Jail Authorities could not produce the accused
due to logistical and administrative constrains and as such these
5
apeal191.2025.odt
factors collectively resulted in unavoidable adjournments. It is further
stated that, the case was fixed for arguments on Charge on
06.01.2026 and directions were issued to the Jail Authorities for strict
compliance to ensure production of all accused on 06.01.2026 and
notice was also issued to the Legal Aid Secretary to ensure that all the
accused were represented by the Counsel so that no further delay
occurs and notices were also issued to the concerned lawyers. It is
further stated that, every possible measure shall be taken to expedite
the trial which would include fixing short and consecutive dates for
arguments on Charge, issuing production warrants well in advance,
and invoking coercive measures, if necessary, against the absentees to
secure their presence. It is further stated that, the Court remains
committed to conduct the proceedings with seriousness, diligence and
sensitively as the case of this magnitude demands ensuring both
speedy disposal and adherence to due process of law.
6. It is informed across the Bar that, the trial has commenced and
the prosecution has examined five (5) witnesses. This shows that,
there is progress in the trial. Considering all the aspects of the matter
and the Report of the learned trial Court, the Appellant can be given
liberty to move for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of
six (6) months. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
i) The Appeal stands dismissed.
ii) The Appellant would be at liberty to move the Application for
bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six (6) months.
apeal191.2025.odt
iii) Fees of the learned Advocate appointed for the Respondent
No.2 is quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The same shall be paid by the Legal
Services Authority.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/03/2026 19:06:27
