Rahul Dinesh Shingade v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2026 Rahul Dinesh Shingade
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra And Anr.
...
Mr. Satyajeet M. Mirajkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State.
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 16th MARCH, 2026.
P. C. :
1.
The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R. No. 107 of 2025 dated 30.07.2025 registered with Talbid Police Station, District Satara for offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 311, 309(6), 305(c), 3(5), 310(2), 311 and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR 2.
The prosecution case is that the complainant was working as a by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:
2026.03.18 11:05:14 +0530 courier person at Krishna Courier, Kasaba Bawada, Kolhapur. On 29.07.2025, the complainant had collected several parcels, including parcels containing gold ornaments weighing about 927.48 grams and cash of Rs. 32,500/- were to be delivered at Mumbai. While travelling by a Shivneri S.T. Bus, on 30.07.2025, Accused 1 of
No.1 allegedly attempted to snatch the sack containing the parcels from the complainant. When the complainant raised an alarm, the co-accused persons joined him, assaulted the complainant and Accused No.3 allegedly threatened the passengers by brandishing a knife. Thereafter, the accused persons forcibly snatched the sack containing the gold ornaments and cash and fled from the spot. During the course of investigation, it transpired that Accused No.2, along with Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6, had conspired together and committed the aforesaid offence. Hence, the report. 3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially, the FIR was lodged against three unknown persons, whereas the charge-sheet has been filed against six accused persons. As such, there is a possibility of over-implication. It is further submitted that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, the further custody of the applicant is not required. 4.
Per contra, the learned A.P.P. has opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of dacoity and was apprehended by the witnesses at the spot. The applicant has been identified in the Test Identification Parade. As such, there is prima facie complicity of the applicant in the crime. It 2 of
is further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, there is a possibility of the applicant fleeing away or committing another offence of a similar nature. Hence, prayed to reject the application. 5.
Having heard the submissions from both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, including the charge-sheet indicates that initially the FIR was lodged against three unknown persons. It is alleged that the applicant was apprehended by the witnesses at the spot. However, the applicant was arraigned as an accused at a belated stage. Thus, there may be a possibility of overimplication. 6.
Furthermore, nothing substantial has been recovered at the instance of the applicant, and the alleged articles have primarily been recovered from the co-accused. The applicant is in custody since his arrest on 30.07.2025, i.e., for more than eight months. It is pertinent to note that though the applicant is alleged to have been identified in the Test Identification Parade, the said report is neither produced before this Court nor forming part of the charge-sheet. 7.
Nevertheless, the investigation is complete for all intents and purposes, and the charge-sheet has been filed. Considering the number of witnesses which the prosecution seeks to examine, the 3 of
trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period. Therefore, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. So far as the apprehension expressed by the learned A.P.P. regarding influencing the prosecution witnesses is concerned, the same can be adequately taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
I.
The bail application is allowed.
II.
Applicant - Rahul Dinesh Shingade be released on bail, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand) with one or two local solvent sureties, in the like amount, in connection with C.R. No. 107 of 2025 dated 30.07.2025 registered with Talbid Police Station, District Satara for offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 311, 309(6), 305(c), 3(5), 310(2), 311 and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the following conditions :- (a) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner. (b) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the trial Court.
(c) The applicant shall submit Aadhar and Pan Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed address and phone numbers and two of the near relatives.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the applicant, it is 4 of
open for the Prosecution to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
8.
Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to the extent of this application and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.] 5 of