In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has cancelled the bail granted to two men accused in a brutal assault that led to the death of a Scheduled Caste man in Maharashtra. The Court held that the High Court had ignored crucial material and relied on irrelevant considerations while granting bail in a serious case involving murder and caste-based offences.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment on February 23, 2026.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident dated August 19, 2022, in Ahmednagar district. According to the complaint filed by Shobha Namdev Sonavane, her husband Namdev was attacked by six men with iron rods and sticks near a roadside shop.
The dispute, as per the FIR, stemmed from a long-standing civil disagreement over a right of way through agricultural land. The complainant alleged that during the assault, the accused not only beat her husband but also abused her in the name of her caste.
Namdev suffered multiple injuries and later died on August 24, 2022, while undergoing treatment. Following his death, Section 302 (murder) of the IPC was added to the case along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Bombay High Court had granted bail to two of the accused in March 2023. Challenging that order, the complainant approached the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court had wrongly examined the medical evidence in detail at the bail stage, almost as if conducting a trial. It was submitted that the FIR clearly attributed specific roles to the accused and that the assault was carried out by an unlawful assembly with a common object to attack and kill.
The State of Maharashtra supported the appellant’s plea and emphasized the seriousness of the allegations.
On the other hand, counsel for the accused argued that bail once granted should not be cancelled lightly. It was contended that there was a time gap between the incident and the death, and that no specific injury had been linked directly to either of the accused.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between cancellation of bail due to misuse and setting aside a bail order because it was legally flawed.
“The order granting bail can be interfered with by the superior Court if it ignores relevant material or is based on extraneous considerations,” the bench observed.
The Court found that the High Court’s reasoning-that it was unclear which accused caused which specific injury-was misplaced in a case involving unlawful assembly. When a group forms with a common object to commit violence, each member can be held responsible for the acts done in furtherance of that object.
The bench also noted that the High Court’s reliance on the number of injuries and the time gap between assault and death was not appropriate at the bail stage. These are matters for trial.
The post-mortem report showed multiple injuries, including a head injury leading to cerebral damage. In such circumstances, the Court said, there was “absolutely no justifiable reason” to grant bail.
Importantly, the Court rejected the view that prior civil litigation weakened the prosecution case. It held that the land dispute could just as well provide a motive for the crime.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return to
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the two accused.
The Court directed them to surrender before the trial court within four weeks. It further instructed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year.
However, the bench 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 seek bail again after key witnesses, including eye-witnesses and the medical expert, are examined.
With these directions, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12440 of 2023
Decision Date: February 23, 2026
