The Supreme Court has set aside the Bombay High Court’s order granting bail to two accused in a murder case arising out of a land dispute, holding that the High Court adopted an erroneous approach by dissecting medical evidence and overlooking the doctrine of unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code.
- Case Title: Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane & Ors.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Date of Judgment: February 23, 2026
- Citation: 2026 INSC 181
Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder and SC/ST Act Case
For grant and cancellation of bail in grave offences, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to two accused charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and various provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appeal was filed by the original complainant, Shobha Namdev Sonavane, challenging the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench order dated March 1, 2023, which had granted bail to the accused in connection with Crime No. 322 of 2022 registered at Kopargaon Taluka Police Station, District Ahmednagar.
The offences invoked included Sections 302, 354, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 509, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of the IPC, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w) and 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act .
Case Background
According to the FIR lodged on August 19, 2022, a longstanding civil dispute over right of way across agricultural land existed between the complainant’s family and the accused. An interim stay had been granted by the High Court in the civil proceedings.
On the morning of August 19, 2022, the complainant’s husband, Namdev Sonavane, was allegedly attacked by six persons, including the respondents, near a shop on the Shirdi-Lasalgaon Road.
The accused were stated to be armed with iron rods and sticks and allegedly assaulted Namdev brutally.
The complainant claimed that when she and her relatives intervened, they were also assaulted. She further alleged that during the incident, the accused hurled caste-based abuses and committed obscene acts targeting her dignity.
Namdev Sonavane succumbed to his injuries on August 24, 2022, following which Section 302 IPC was added to the case .
High Court’s Reasoning for Granting Bail
The High Court granted bail primarily on the following considerations:
- The existence of longstanding civil litigation between the parties.
- The inability of witnesses to specify which accused inflicted the fatal head injury.
- The fact that only eight injuries were recorded despite six assailants being involved.
- The time gap between the date of assault (August 19, 2022) and the date of death (August 24, 2022).
- The observation that caste-based abuse, even if assumed, would not justify continued custody in isolation.
The High Court also noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.
Supreme Court: Clear Distinction Between Bail Cancellation and Reversal
The Supreme Court clarified that there is a “clear distinction between cancellation of bail” under Section 439(2) CrPC and reversal of an order granting bail by a superior court .
The Bench observed:
“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 extraneous considerations.”
The Court categorically held that the present case fell within the second category — warranting interference due to flawed reasoning in the bail order.
Unlawful Assembly and Common Object Ignored
One of the central grounds for setting aside the bail was the High Court’s failure to properly apply the doctrine of unlawful assembly under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 IPC.
The Supreme Court noted that the FIR clearly alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting and killing the deceased.
In this context, the Court held that the High Court’s insistence on identifying the specific injury caused by each accused was legally untenable. When an offence is committed by members of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of a common object, each member is equally liable.
The Bench stated that “the prosecution was under no obligation to identify and fix the individual acts of the accused” in such circumstances .
Medical Evidence Not to Be Minutely Dissected at Bail Stage
The post-mortem report recorded eight injuries, including contusions, lacerations, fractures, and a head injury resulting in cerebral damage. The probable cause of death was noted as
“combined effect of septicaemia with cerebral damage due to blunt trauma to head with polytrauma” .
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reasoning, that it could not be ascertained whose weapon caused the fatal injury,to be “absolutely irrelevant” at the bail stage .
It further observed that the question whether there was intention or knowledge to kill would be assessed by the trial court upon full appreciation of evidence and not at the stage of bail.
Prior Civil Litigation
The High Court had treated the pendency of civil litigation as a factor suggesting possible false implication.
Rejecting this approach, the Supreme Court held that such prior litigation could equally provide motive for the assault.
The Bench observed that the civil dispute
“could, very well, have fuelled the respondents-accused with the motive to launch the assault” .
Thus, the pendency of civil litigation could not be treated as a mitigating factor in favour of the accused.
SC/ST Act and Gravity of Offence
The Supreme Court reiterated that in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act coupled with murder charges, courts must remain alive to the gravity of allegations and their societal impact.
Referring to earlier precedents, the Court emphasized that superficial application of bail parameters undermines public faith in the judiciary when dealing with grievous crimes .
The Bench stressed that where serious allegations exist and relevant material has been overlooked, a superior court is justified in setting aside a bail order even if there has been no misuse of liberty.
Final Directions
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order and cancelled the bail granted to the accused.
The respondents were directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks, failing which coercive steps would be taken to secure their custody .
The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail issue and would not influence the merits of the trial.
The accused were granted liberty to renew their prayer for bail after the examination of eye-witnesses and the medical jurist .
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
