Chinmay Dattatray Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 April, 2026

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Chinmay Dattatray Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 April, 2026

                                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.          OF 2026
                          (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4216/2026)


                         CHINMAY DATTATRAY SHINDE                           ...APPELLANT(S)

                                                             VERSUS

                         STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                               ….RESPONDENT(S)


                                                     O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated

SPONSORED

23.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay in Bail Application No.837/2025.

The appellant herein has been booked for the crime

registered pursuant to FIR No. 219/2022 dated

19.09.2022 lodged with Police Station Wagle Estate,

District Thane City with respect to offences punishable

under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 141, 143

and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)and under

Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

An application seeking regular bail having been

rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2026.04.01
15:29:45 IST
23.06.2025, the appellant has preferred the instant
Reason:

appeal.

1
This Court vide its order dated 27.02.2026, issued

notice in the instant matter.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the

material on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant is in jail since 14.01.2023; that the trial has

not yet commenced and there are as many as at least thirteen

witnesses to be examined. Further, out of eight accused

persons, five have been released on bail; one is absconding

and there is only one other accused, who is in jail. Having

regard to length of incarceration and the fact that the

trial would inevitably take time to conclude, the appellant

may be granted the relief of bail as five other accused in

the same incident have been granted bail. He therefore,

submitted that impugned order may be set aside and the

appeal may be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent/State, with reference to his counter

affidavit contended that the role of the appellant-

accused in the instant case is specific and serious.

The High Court was justified in not releasing the

appellant on bail. Further, there are only thirteen

witnesses to be examined. If a direction is issued to

2
the concerned Sessions Court, the trial could be

concluded as expeditiously as possible. There are other

criminal antecedents as against the appellant herein.

In the circumstances, the appeal may be simply

dismissed.

In response to this submission, learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that there are criminal

antecedents in respect of the so-called victim too.

Hence, this Court may grant relief to the appellant

herein.

Considering the facts on record, in our view, the

case for bail is made out.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as

under:

“The appellant shall be produced before the

concerned trial Court as early as possible and the

trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to

such conditions as it may deem appropriate to

impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings

arising out of FIR No. 219/2022 mentioned above.”

It is directed that the appellant shall extend

complete cooperation in the trial of the instant case.

The appellant shall not misuse his liberty in any

manner.

3
In case the appellant is apprehended in respect of

any other offence, liberty is reserved to the

respondent herein to seek cancellation of bail granted

to the appellant by this Court in this appeal

Any infraction of the conditions may entail in

cancellation of bail granted to the appellant.

With these observations, the appeal is allowed.

………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]

….……………………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 01, 2026

4
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4216/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-06-2025
in BA No. 837/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay]

CHINMAY DATTATRAY SHINDE Petitioner(s)

VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)

IA No. 61162/2026 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 61157/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 61158/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 61164/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES

Date : 01-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, AOR
Mr. Pranay Saraf, Adv.

Ms. Vidhi Pankaj Thaker, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.

Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.s

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.

The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order.

Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

(NEETU SACHDEVA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
(DEPUTY REGISTRAR) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)

5