Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Santosh Sukhdeo Waikar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2026
[@ SLP [CRL.] NO.1569/2026]
SANTOSH SUKHDEO WAIKAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant seeks bail in connection
with FIR No.I-190 of 2015, registered at
Kopargaon City Police Station, District –
Ahmednagar pertaining to the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 395, 120-B, 326,
143, 147, 148, 149, 504, and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3, 4, and 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(1)(a), 3(2), and
3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized
Crime Act, 1999.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
CRL A @ SLP [CRL.] NO.1569/2026 1
Date: 2026.03.24
18:01:37 IST
Reason:
We have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that though there are a
number of prior criminal antecedents in which
the appellant is allegedly involved, he has
been under incarceration for more than a
decade. The trial is progressing slowly and,
in fact, only 7 out of 40 witnesses have been
examined. It was further submitted that the
delay in trial is attributable to the
abscondence of the co-accused, and the
appellant cannot be made to suffer for the
same.
Learned counsel appearing for the State,
by placing reliance on the counter affidavit
filed, submitted that considering the prior
criminal antecedents, there is no need for any
interference with the impugned order.
CRL A @ SLP [CRL.] NO.1569/2026 2
Admittedly, the appellant has been under
incarceration for more than a decade. It is not
as if he has committed any offence either
during incarceration or during parole, if any.
As rightly submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, neither
the prior criminal antecedents nor the
abscondence of the co-accused would come in the
way of the appellant getting enlarged on bail,
especially, when he is under incarceration for
more than a decade and it is not the case of
the respondent that the delay in trial is
attributable to the appellant.
Considering the above, we are inclined to
grant bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set
aside and the appellant is granted bail on the
CRL A @ SLP [CRL.] NO.1569/2026 3
terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the
concerned Trial Court.
The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
………………………J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
………………………J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 23, 2026.
CRL A @ SLP [CRL.] NO.1569/2026 4
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.5 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). 1569/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 19-11-2025 in BA No. 1632/2025 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at
Aurangabad]
SANTOSH SUKHDEO WAIKAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 27607/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 27609/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 23-03-2026 This matter was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh,
AOR
Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Adv.
CRL A @ SLP [CRL.] NO.1569/2026 5
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,
AORUPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The appellant is granted bail on terms and
conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file]CRL A @ SLP [CRL.] NO.1569/2026 6
