IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4252/2025)
NILESH VITHOBA GADADE Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated
06.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Criminal Bail Application No. 1579 of 2024.
The appellant herein has been booked for the crime
registered pursuant to FIR No. No 103 of 2020, lodged with
MIDC Kupwad Police Station, for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 120-B, 307, 143, 147, 149, 109, 120 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and under
Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is the case of
the prosecution that on 10.07.2020, the appellant and co-
accused barged in a company, where deceased was working
Signature Not Verifiedand assaulted him with sword and sickle and murdered him.
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.18
[Link] IST
Reason:
1
An application seeking regular bail was preferred by
the appellant herein before the High Court and the same
was dismissed by impugned order dated 06.02.2025. Hence,
the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
This Court vide its order dated 27.03.2025, issued
notice in the instant matter.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant in
support of the appeal and learned counsel for the State
and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in
the instant FIR No.103/2020 dated 10.07.2020 registered at
MIDC Kupwad Police Station, seven accused are there, out
of which, six accused have already been granted bail; that
only this appellant has been in jail since 11.07.2020 for
nearly five years; that there are as many as eighty one
witnesses and only one witness has been examined. The
Trial would inevitably be delayed. When the other accused
has been granted liberty, there is no reason to
discriminate as against this accused. He, therefore,
submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the
relief may be granted to this appellant also subject to
the conditions to be imposed by this Court.
2
Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent
with reference to his counter affidavit contended that the
overt act is strongly alleged as against the appellant
herein; that in the event he is released on bail, he would
definitely influence the witnesses and as a result the
trial would be jeopardized. He contended that it may be
that the other accused have been released on bail but
there is no merit in this appeal.
Learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant
also endorsed the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the first respondent-State. In the above context, the
appellant’s counsel drew our attention to order dated
04.03.2024 in SLP (Crl) No.1024/2024 (Sachin Adnyan
Chauhan vs. State of Maharashtra) wherein accused No.2 was
granted bail by this Court. He contended that a similar
order may be made without any distinction being made
insofar as this appellant is concerned.
We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar.
We have also perused the order dated 04.03.2024 referred
to above. We note that the FIR is dated 10.07.2020; that
there are as many as eighty one witnesses and till date
only one witness has been examined. There is no doubt that
the trial would inevitably be delayed owing to the large
number of witnesses who have to be examined in the matter.
3
In the circumstances, we find that the interest of
justice would be met if the relief of bail is granted to
this appellant also as he has been in jail a little over
five years.
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 103 of 2020 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.
Any infraction of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail granted to the appellant.
4
With these observations, the Criminal Appeal is
allowed.
………………………………………………………,J.
( B.V. NAGARATHNA )
…………………………………………………………,J.
( K.V. VISWANATHAN )
NEW DELHI;
JULY 18, 2025
5
ITEM NO.5 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). 4252/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-02-2025
in CRBA No. 1579/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay]
NILESH VITHOBA GADADE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 72294/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 72297/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 18-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang Bharat Varma , AOR
Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
Mr. Anand Landge Aor, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The Criminal Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
