Supreme Court of India
Shobha Namdev Sonavane vs Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane on 23 February, 2026
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
2026 INSC 181
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 12440 of 2023)
SHOBHA NAMDEV
SONAVANE ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SAMADHAN BAJIRAO
SONVANE AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The original complainant, Shobha Namdev
Sonavane1, is before us for assailing the order dated
1st March, 2023, passed by the High Court of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2026.02.23
18:14:29 IST
Reason: 1 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘complainant/appellant’
1
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad2 in
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2023, whereby
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were granted bail in
connection with Crime No. 322 of 2022 registered
with Kopargaon Taluka Police Station, Dist.
Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 354, 294, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506,
509, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427 of Indian Penal
Code, 18603 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.4
4. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
I. BRIEF FACTS
5. The appellant lodged a complaint at P.S.
Kopargaon Taluka on 19th August, 2022 alleging inter
alia that a prior civil dispute existed between the
complainant’s family and the accused persons with
respect to a right of way over agricultural land. The
2 Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as the “I.P.C.”.
4 Hereinafter, referred to as the “SC/ST Act”.
2
said dispute was pending adjudication, and an order
of stay had been granted by the High Court in relation
thereto. On 19th August, 2022, at around 10:00 A.M.,
her husband, Shri Namdev Sonavane, left home to
drop their daughter to the school on his motorcycle.
At about 11:00 A.M., the complainant was informed
by her brother-in-law, Sunil, that he had received a
call from one Sainath Uttam Bacchav informing that
six persons, including respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were
assaulting her husband with iron rods and sticks
near the shop of Tilekar on the Shirdi-Lasalgaon
Road. Thereafter, the complainant, her brother-in-
law Sunil and Sunil’s wife Usha proceeded to the
spot, where they saw Shri Namdev lying on ground
and being assaulted with iron rods and sticks. When
the complainant and her relatives attempted to
intervene, they too were assaulted. According to the
complainant, respondent No. 1, armed with an iron
rod and Respondent No. 2 armed with a stick,
assaulted Shri Namdev. The complainant further
alleged that during the course of the incident,
respondent Nos. 1 & 2, along with one another
accused, removed their pants and uttered
3
threatening and abusive words to the complainant in
the name of her caste.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR
bearing No. 322 of 2022 came to be registered at P.S.
Kopargaon Taluka for offences under Sections 354,
294, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 509, 143, 144, 147,
148, 149, 427 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST
Act.
7. Shri Namdev Sonavane passed away on 24th
August, 2022 while undergoing treatment and thus,
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was
added to the case.
II. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY
APPELLANT
8. Learned counsel representing the appellant
contended that the High Court, while allowing the
appeal preferred by the respondents-accused and
granting them bail, proceeded on extraneous
considerations. It was urged that there are specific
and clear allegations in the FIR based on the
statement of the appellant, who herself sustained
injuries in the incident, to the effect that respondent
4
No.1 Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane was armed with an
iron rod and respondent No.2 Ganesh Shankar
Gawand was armed with a stick and that they
actively participated in the fatal assault made upon
the deceased Namdev by the members of the unlawful
assembly, the objective whereof was to murder the
victim and commit caste based violence with the
complainant. Learned counsel submitted that
notwithstanding such specific role being attributed,
the High Court granted bail to the respondents-
accused on the flimsy and faulty assumption that the
injured witness could not state with certainty as to
which body part of the deceased Namdev was
targeted by the respondents-accused during the
assault.
9. It was further submitted that the High Court
also fell in grave error in granting bail by dissecting
the medical evidence as if the case was being finally
decided at the stage of trial.
10. It was also contended that the findings recorded
by the High Court in the impugned judgment affect
the merits of the case and are bound to prejudice the
trial.
5
11. Learned counsel further urged that the
parameters for grant of bail in a case involving
murder of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste
community were not duly adverted to by the High
Court while directing release of the respondents-
accused on bail in such a grave case.
12. It was also urged that the High Court
erroneously treated the pendency of civil litigation
between the parties as a ground for granting bail,
whereas, in fact, the said pending civil dispute
constituted the very motive for the accused to launch
the murderous assault on the deceased Namdev as
well as the complainant.
13. It was thus submitted that the impugned order
whereby the respondents-accused have been
released on bail, is patently unjust and deserves to
be set aside.
III. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY
RESPONDENTS
14. Learned standing counsel for the respondent
No. 3-State of Maharashtra supported the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant. He submitted that there are grave
6
allegations against both the respondents-accused.
Fuelled by the motive arising out of the pending civil
litigation and land disputes between the parties, the
accused launched a concerted attack on the deceased
Namdev. It was urged that six assailants belabored
Namdev and caused as many as eight injuries all over
the body. Namdev became unconscious owing to the
assault and subsequently expired due to the
cumulative effect of the injuries, which resulted in
severe cerebral damage, as recorded in the post
mortem report.
15. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
respondents-accused opposed the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the State.
16. It was submitted that the High Court has
granted bail to the respondents-accused on apropos
consideration of the material available on record. Bail
was granted to the accused considering the fact that
there were pending civil litigations between the
parties, which could give reason to the complainant
to falsely implicate the accused for the crime. The
assailants were allegedly six in number and yet, only
7
eight injuries were caused on the body of the
deceased Namdev.
17. The incident took place on 19th August, 2022
and Shri Namdev expired on 24th August, 2022. The
significant gap between the date of the incident and
the date of death of Shri Namdev, creates grave doubt
regarding the nexus between the injuries sustained
and his death. Learned counsel urged that neither
the complainant nor the other eye witnesses
attributed any specific injuries caused to the
deceased to either of the respondents-accused, and
the possibility of over implication cannot be ruled
out.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused
fervently urged that the considerations for grant of
bail and cancellation of bail are entirely different. It
was submitted that cancellation of bail should be
resorted to only in the rarest of rare cases, where
there exists specific substantiated material
suggesting that the accused released on bail has
violated the terms and conditions of bail, or has
tampered with the prosecution evidence, or where
there is a likelihood of the accused absconding and
thereby obstructing the process of trial. He submitted
8
that none of the aforesaid scenarios exist in the
present case and, therefore, there is no reason to
interfere with the order granting bail to the
respondents-accused. He thus implored the Court to
dismiss the appeal.
IV. ANALYSIS
19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone
through the impugned judgment and the material
placed on record.
20. We make it clear that there is a clear distinction
between cancellation of bail on the considerations
provided under Section 439(2) CrPC (corresponding
Section 483(3) BNSS) and reversal of an order of bail
by the superior Court. While cancellation should only
be resorted to in cases where the accused misuses
the liberty of bail granted to him or tempers with the
evidence. On the other hand, the order granting bail
can be interfered with by the superior Court
considering the nature and gravity of the offences; if
the order granting bail ignores the relevant material
available on record or that the same is based on
9
extraneous considerations. The present is a case in
the second category.
21. This court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.5, relying upon an
earlier judgment in the case of Ajwar v. Waseem6,
observed as follows:
“18. A superficial application of bail parameters
not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself
but also risks weakening public faith in the
judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace of dowry
deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both
within and outside the courtroom, that courts must
safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that
continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These
observations regarding grant of bail in grievous
crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court
in Ajwar v. Waseem [Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10
SCC 768 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 320] in the following
paras : (SCC pp. 783-84, paras 26-28)“26. While considering as to whether bail
ought to be granted in a matter involving a
serious criminal offence, the Court must
consider relevant factors like the nature of the
accusations made against the accused, the
manner in which the crime is alleged to have
been committed, the gravity of the offence, the
role attributed to the accused, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the
offence, if the accused are released on bail, the
likelihood of the accused being unavailable in
the event bail is granted, the possibility of
obstructing the proceedings and evading the5 (2025) 4 SCC 172
6 (2024) 10 SCC 76810
courts of justice and the overall desirability of
releasing the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman
Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]
; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
1977] ; Masroor v. State of
U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC
286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368] ; Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] ; Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
527] ; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of
Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri)
425] ; Mahipal v. Rajesh
Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2
SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
27. It is equally well settled that bail once
granted, ought not to be cancelled in a
mechanical manner. However, an
unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
always open to interference by the superior
court. If there are serious allegations
against the accused, even if he has not
misused the bail granted to him, such an
order can be cancelled by the same Court
that has granted the bail. Bail can also be
revoked by a superior court if it transpires
that the courts below have ignored the
relevant material available on record or not
looked into the gravity of the offence or the
impact on the society resulting in such an
order……”[Emphasis supplied]
11
22. Also, this court in the case of Victim ‘X’ v.
State of Bihar & Anr.7, while setting aside the order
granting bail to a person accused of committing grave
offences, inter alia, under the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, observed as follows:
“24. It is trite that bail once granted should not be
cancelled ordinarily, but where the facts are so
grave that they shake the conscience of the
Court; and where the release of the accused on
bail would have an adverse impact on the
society, the Courts are not powerless and are
expected to exercise jurisdiction conferred by
law to cancel such bail orders so as to subserve
the ends of justice. The present one is precisely a
case of such nature.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
23. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the
facts of the present case, we now proceed to examine
whether the reasons assigned by the High Court for
grant of bail can withstand judicial scrutiny.
24. The High Court has assigned the following
reasons for granting bail to the respondents-accused:
“10. Perusal of the FIR would show that the
appellants have their lands adjacent to the land of
the deceased and it is said that there is long
standing dispute in respect of way to the land. This
Court has granted stay to the matter and,
therefore, the dispute aggravated. The informant
contends that her husband – Namdeo left along7 2025 INSC 877
12
with daughter for dropping her to school around
9.00 a.m. and around 10.00 a.m., her brother-in-
law informed about the fact that six persons were
assaulting Namdeo in front of Tilekar’s shop.
Informant, her brother-in-law and wife of brother-
in-law went to the spot. The statement of these
three persons corroborate each other, however, it is
to be noted from all the statements of all the three
witnesses that the alleged act imputing offence
under the Atrocities Act appears to be against
present appellants and co-accused Ravindra. It is
stated that by doing obscene act, they had abused
the informant in the name of caste. As regards the
abuses in the name of caste is concerned, role of
each accused will have to be considered. The
informant, her brother-in-law, brother-in-law’s wife
– Usha and the other eye witnesses have stated that
accused Sahebrao was holding axe and accused
Shankar was holding stick and they had assaulted
Namdeo as well as accused Shankar appears to
have assaulted Usha with the stick. Unfortunately,
Namdeo has expired, but the fact that is required
to be considered is that the incident is stated to
have taken place on 19.08.2022 and Namdeo
expired on 24.08.2022. The postmortem reveals
eight injuries of following nature: –
1) Bluish contused abrasion of size 6cm x 4cm was
present over right side of upper arm.
2) Lacerated wound was present over right hand
thumb with dressing.
3) Multiple sutured wounds was present over right
side of leg with discharging fluid.
4) Bluish contused lacerated wounds of size 4cm x
3cm to 2cm x 1cm was present over left side of leg.
5) Bluish/Blackish contusion of size 6cm x 4 cm
13
was present over left side of arm with fracture of
underlying bone.
6) Bluish contusion of size 12 cm x 4 cm was
present over left side of lumber region.
7) Multiple bluish contusion was present over back
of trunk.
8) Contusion was present over left side of parietal
region of scalp with effusion of blood.
The probable cause of death as aforesaid
appears to be combined effect of septicaemia
with cerebral damage due to blunt trauma to
head with polytrauma. Whose weapon caused
head injury to Namdeo cannot be ascertained,
as there is no such specific statement either in
the FIR or in statements of the witnesses under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Taking into consideration the septicaemia,
which would have developed later to the
bruises, it will have to be considered by the
trial Court, as to whether there was intention
and knowledge to kill Namdeo.
11. The investigation is over and charge-sheet is
filed. The role attributed to the present appellants
is holding of iron rod and stick. The discovery of
iron rod as well as stick appears to be from co-
accused Yogesh Gawand on 21.08.2022. Keeping
the question open as to whether the said discovery
would be admissible against the present accused or
not, the only fact is then required to be considered
that accused Yogesh appears to be the brother of
appellant No.2 and the discovery panchanama
states that the scythe was also discovered by
Yogesh and it is then stated that it was used by
appellant No.2 Ganesh, but the FIR speaks
something else. The present appellant is said to
have discovered his motorcycle and his clothes.
14
The CA reports are yet awaited. At the cost of
repetition, it will have to be stated that even
from the statements of certain witnesses under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
it cannot be gathered whose weapon has
caused which injury to Namdeo.
12. As regards, the obscene act and abuses given
in the name of caste are concerned no doubt it is
attributed to the present appellants, but taking
that offence in segregation will not justify the
further custody of the accused. Another fact will
have to be considered here is that the litigation is
going on since last many years and at any earlier
point of time, it has not been pointed out that the
situation was so worst i.e. resulting in such
attacks. Therefore, taking into consideration all
these aspects, the appellant ought to have been
released on bail by the learned Special Judge. No
doubt, the offence charged against the appellants
are serious in nature, but for the aforesaid reasons,
they need not be asked to remain in jail as it will be
long way to stand their trial……”
[Emphasis supplied]
25. The prior litigation between the parties, which
has been treated as one of the grounds for granting
bail by the High Court can work both ways. This
litigation could, very well, have fuelled the
respondents-accused with the motive to launch the
assault. As per the FIR, there was a concerted attack
by the six accused persons who, not only abused and
15
insulted the complainant and her deceased husband
referring to their caste but also launched an all-out
attack causing multiple injuries to the deceased by
iron rods and sticks. When the appellant tried to
intervene and save her husband, she too was beaten
and subjected to caste-based insults and suffered
injuries at the hands of the assailants.
26. The FIR was registered applying the offences
under Sections 143, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC amongst
others. There is clear allegation in the FIR that the
accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, the
common object whereof was to belabor and kill the
deceased Namdev.
27. In this backdrop, clearly, the approach adopted
by the High Court at the stage of considering bail
recording that the prosecution was required to
indicate the individual role of the accused in the
incident, and that failure to do so, entitled the
respondents-accused to bail, is erroneous on the face
of record. In a case where the offence is committed by
an unlawful assembly, each member of the assembly
is equally responsible for the acts committed in
furtherance of the unlawful object. The common
object of the assembly being to assault the deceased
16
Namdev on account of the pending civil litigation,
each member of the unlawful assembly was thus
equally liable and responsible for the offending acts.
We may note that the looking to the large number of
injuries, caused to the deceased (referred to infra),
even the plea of over implication was not tenable.
28. As per the post mortem report, the following
injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased
Namdev:
“1) Bluish contused abrasion of size 6cm x 4cm was
present over right side of upper arm.
2) Lacerated wound was present over right hand
thumb with dressing.
3) Multiple sutured wounds was present over right
side of leg with discharging fluid.
4) Bluish contused lacerated wounds of size 4cm x
3cm to 2cm x 1cm was present over left side of leg.
5) Bluish/Blackish contusion of size 6cm x 4 cm
was present over left side of arm with fracture of
underlying bone.
6) Bluish contusion of size 12 cm x 4 cm was
present over left side of lumber region.
7) Multiple bluish contusion was present over back
of trunk.
8) Contusion was present over left side of parietal
region of scalp with effusion of blood.”17
29. A careful perusal of injury Nos. 3 and 7 would
clearly indicate that multiple injuries were noticed by
the autopsy surgeon. In that backdrop, the
observation of the High Court that the accused were
six in number and they inflicted only eight injuries
and that therefore it could not be ascertained whose
weapon caused the head injury, is absolutely
irrelevant and could not have been a ground to grant
bail.
30. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned
that the provisions of rioting, unlawful assembly
having been invoked, the prosecution was under no
obligation to identify and fix the individual acts of the
accused. So far as the observation made by the High
Court regarding the time gap between the date of the
incident and the date of death of the deceased
Namdev is concerned, the said aspect would have to
be gone into by the trial Court at the time of
appreciating the medical evidence.
31. It needs to be noted that even the High Court
itself has observed that the trial Court would have to
consider whether there was any intention and
knowledge to kill deceased Namdev. Once the High
Court itself noted the multiple injuries on the body of
18
the deceased with injury No. 8 causing deep rooted
cerebral damage by blunt trauma, there was
absolutely no justifiable reason to grant bail to the
accused respondents.
V. CONCLUSION
32. As an upshot of the above discussion, the
impugned order does not stand scrutiny and is
hereby set aside. The bail granted to the respondents-
accused by the High Court is cancelled. The
respondents-accused shall surrender before the trial
Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing
which the trial Court shall take appropriate steps to
secure their custody during the pendency of the trial.
The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within
a period of one year from today.
33. We make it clear that the observations made
above are only restricted to the consideration of this
appeal for cancellation of bail and shall have no
bearing on the outcome of the trial and the trial Court
shall proceed with the case uninfluenced by any of
the observations made in this order. We further grant
liberty to the accused to renew their prayer for bail
19
once the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the
medical jurist is recorded by the trial Court.
34. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.
35. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 23, 2026.
20
