Dhananjay Pandurang Shinde v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 311 OF 2026 Dhananjay Pandurang Shinde
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Anr ...
Mr. Mehbub I. Banadar a/w Mr. Parvej Sanadi and Mr. S. Nair Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, APP for the Respondent-State. ...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 5th MAY, 2026 P. C. :
1.
The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R. No. 198 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024 registered with Shahapur Police Station, District Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. No deadly weapon is recovered at the instance of the applicant. There is no premeditation on the part of the applicant. The applicant is in custody since his arrest on 30.05.2024, i.e. for almost two years. The co-accused are released on bail by this Court. Therefore, Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:
2026.05.06 19:07:53 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR applicant deserves to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. 1 of
3.
Per contra, learned APP opposed the application submitting that the offence is serious in nature. Further, an apprehension is also expressed that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed to reject the application.
4.
Having heard the submissions from both the sides and upon perusal of the record indicates that the co-accused particularly the prime accused Tahir is released on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 in Criminal Bail Application No.5083 of 2024. Moreover, the co-accused Santosh is also enlarged on bail pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2026 in Bail Application No.110 of 2026. 5.
The applicant is in custody for almost two years and has more or less identical role to that of the co-accused enlarged on bail. As such, the applicant is entitled for parity. Having regard to the number witnesses which the prosecution proposes to examine, it is very unlikely that the trial can be commenced and concluded within a reasonable period. In this view of the matter, further incarceration of the applicant would be unjustified.
6.
As far as the apprehension expressed by the learned A.P.P. in relation to tampering prosecution witnesses is concerned, the same 2 of
can be adequately taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. I am, therefore, persuaded to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
7.
Hence, the order :-
O R D E R
I.
The bail application is allowed.
II.
Applicant - Dhananjay Pandurang Shinde 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. 198 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024 registered with Shahapur Police Station, District Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 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.
3 of
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to approach the concerned Court seeking cancellation of bail, notwithstanding the fact that this Court has granted bail. III.
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.] 4 of