The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Bombay High Court order granting bail to two individuals accused of murder and caste-based violence. The Court held that in cases involving an unlawful assembly, the prosecution is not obligated to identify the individual acts of each accused at the bail stage, as every member of the assembly is equally responsible for acts committed in furtherance of the common object.
The judgment was delivered on February 23, 2026, by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta in the case of Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Others.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from an FIR registered on August 19, 2022, at P.S. Kopargaon Taluka, Ahmednagar, following an assault on Shri Namdev Sonavane and the complainant, Shobha Namdev Sonavane. The dispute arose over a right of way over agricultural land, which was pending adjudication with a stay order from the High Court.
According to the complainant, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Ganesh Shankar Gawand), along with others, intercepted and assaulted Namdev Sonavane with iron rods and sticks. The complainant and her relatives were also assaulted when they intervened. Furthermore, it was alleged that the accused committed obscene acts and uttered caste-based abuses.
Namdev Sonavane passed away on August 24, 2022, while undergoing treatment. Consequently, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was added to the case alongside charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On March 1, 2023, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, granted bail to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, prompting the complainant to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellant: The counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court proceeded on extraneous considerations and a “flimsy and faulty assumption” that the injured witness could not state with certainty which body part of the deceased was targeted. It was urged that the High Court erroneously treated the pending civil litigation as a ground for bail, whereas it actually constituted the motive for the attack.
For the State of Maharashtra: Supporting the appellant, the State’s counsel highlighted that six assailants caused eight injuries, resulting in severe cerebral damage. They contended that the concerted attack was fueled by the land dispute.
For the Respondents-Accused: The counsel for the respondents argued that the High Court’s decision was based on a proper consideration of the record. They emphasized the gap between the incident and the death, questioning the nexus between the injuries and the demise. They also contended that the parameters for cancellation of bail are different and should only be resorted to in “rarest of rare cases” where bail conditions are violated.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between the cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC (now Section 483(3) BNSS) and the reversal of a bail order by a superior court. The Court noted:
“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 criticized the High Court’s approach of dissecting medical evidence and requiring individual role attribution at the bail stage.
On Unlawful Assembly: The Bench observed that since Sections 143, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC were invoked, the High Court’s insistence on indicating individual roles was erroneous.
“In a case where the offence is committed by an unlawful assembly, each member of the assembly is equally responsible for the acts committed in furtherance of the unlawful object… the prosecution was under no obligation to identify and fix the individual acts of the accused.”
On Medical Evidence: The Court noted that the autopsy report recorded eight injuries, including deep-rooted cerebral damage. It held that the High Court’s observation—that it could not be ascertained whose weapon caused the head injury—was “absolutely irrelevant” for the purpose of granting bail.
On Civil Litigation: The Bench pointed out that the prior litigation treated as a ground for bail by the High Court could actually be the motive for the crime. Referring to Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) and Ajwar v. Waseem (2024), the Court reiterated that bail parameters must be applied strictly in serious criminal offences to maintain public faith in the judiciary.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order.
“The bail granted to the respondents-accused by the High Court is cancelled. The respondents-accused shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today.”
The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within one year and proceed uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations. However, the accused were granted liberty to renew their prayer for bail once the evidence of eye-witnesses and the medical jurist is recorded.
Case Title: Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). [___] of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 12440 of 2023)
