High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Under SC/ST Act Due to Insufficient Evidence. Appellant's Non-Presence at Crime Scene and Weak Evidence Against Him Justified Bail Grant.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 17
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal for bail by the appellant, Sohel Khan Yunus Khan, under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant was accused in a murder case concerning the death of Manish Sagar Shendre, allegedly committed by a group seeking revenge for a prior murder. The informant, who was the sister of the deceased, reported the incident after finding her brother injured. The investigation revealed multiple stab wounds and identified several accused, including the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that he was not present at the crime scene and that the evidence against him was weak, particularly relying on the confessional statements of co-accused, which were deemed inadmissible. The prosecution contended that the appellant aided the assailants in fleeing the scene. The court analyzed the evidence, noting that the appellant's presence at the scene was not established and that the prosecution failed to provide incriminating evidence against him. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, quashing the lower court's order and granting bail under specific conditions, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence against the appellant.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail - Grant of Bail - Insufficient Evidence - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 14-A - The court found that the evidence against the appellant was insufficient to deny bail, as he was not present at the crime scene and his involvement was not established. The court held that the appellant made out a prima facie case for bail (Paras 19-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail considering the nature of the evidence and his alleged involvement in the crime.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the appellant was granted bail on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with conditions.

Law Points

  • Bail under SC/ST Act
  • Evidence admissibility
  • Role of co-accused statements
  • Nature of evidence in bail applications
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (09) 177

Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2026

2026-09-22

Y. G. Khobragade

Shri Akshay Naik, Shri Imram Deshmukh, Shri Yuvraj Dhande, Mrs. H. S. Dhande, Ms. Nisha Gajbhiye-Wasnik

Sohel Khan Yunus Khan

State of Maharashtra, Sanjivani Manoj Datar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal for bail under SC/ST Act

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought bail from the High Court

Filing Reason

Appeal against the denial of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge

Previous Decisions

Lower court denied bail based on the appellant's alleged involvement in the murder

Issues

Entitlement to bail considering the evidence Admissibility of co-accused confessions

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued lack of evidence and non-presence at the crime scene Prosecution argued appellant aided in fleeing after the crime

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that the evidence against the appellant was insufficient to justify continued detention, particularly noting the lack of presence at the crime scene and the inadmissibility of co-accused confessions.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned order is not justified and liable to be quashed and set aside. The appellant/accused has made out a prima facie case to enlarge him on bail during the pendency of the trial.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a bail application which was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 14-A
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 103(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 61(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds State's Decision on Promotion and Seniority — No Retrospective Promotion Granted.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Reassessment Notice Under Income Tax Act — Notice Issued Beyond Time Limit and Without Proper Sanction Is Invalid. Reassessment notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 quashed as time-barr...