Supreme Court Grants Bail to Appellant in Murder Case Despite Being Named in Charge-Sheet – “Mere Mention in Charge-Sheet Without Direct Involvement or Overt Act Cannot Justify Continued Custody Under Section 302 IPC and SC/ST Act”

We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar.

We find that having regard to the fact that the Charge-sheet

has been filed on 31.10.2023 and while the appellant has been

named in the Charge-sheet, he is not named originally in the

FIR. Further, he is in jail since 01.08.2023. Although, there

are only eleven witnesses to be examined, the fact remains

that there is no overt act attributed to the appellant and the

Charge Sheet has also been filed on 31.10.2023 wherein the

appellant has been named.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10003/2024)

VIKRAM JAGDISH SHETE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 

Dated: OCTOBER 03, 2024.

Leave granted.

This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated

25.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,

in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2024.

The appellant Vikram Jagdish Shete has been facing trial

in connection with a crime registered pursuant to First

Information Report No. 444 of 2023 dated 01.08.2023 lodged

with Police Station Powai, District Brahan Mumbai City, in

respect of offences punishable under Section 302, read with

Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(2),

(5),(6) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

An appeal seeking regular bail having been rejected by

the High Court vide impugned order dated 25.06.2024, the

appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

This Court, vide its order dated 01.08.2024, issued

notice in the instant matter.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondent(s)/State and perused the material

on record. The appellant has been in custody for approximately

one year and two months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant herein is not named in the FIR; that no overt act is

also attributed to the appellant; that the use of Knife

against the deceased is attributed to Sandeep Birare and not

the appellant; that the appellant is only 23 years of age. In

the circumstances, his incarceration since 01.08.2023 is

improper. He further submitted that Charge-sheet was filed on

31.10.2023 and he has been in jail since 01.08.2023.

Therefore, this is a fit case where relief may be granted to

the appellant by setting aside the order of the High Court

which has sustained the order of the Sessions Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s)/State

with reference to his counter affidavit submitted that even

though the appellant is not named in the FIR, the fact remains

that he is named in the Charge-sheet and the appellant is the

person who procured the knife and instigated Sandeep Birare to

commit the overt act against the deceased; that the appellant

is also equally liable as Sandeep Birare having regard to the

fact that the offences are under Section 302 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as other offences

under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He therefore,

submitted that this is not a fit case for grant of relief to

the appellant herein particularly when there are only eleven

witnesses and five eye-witnesses and the trial could be

completed expeditiously; that the appellant also has a

criminal antecedent.

We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar.

We find that having regard to the fact that the Charge-sheet

has been filed on 31.10.2023 and while the appellant has been

named in the Charge-sheet, he is not named originally in the

FIR. Further, he is in jail since 01.08.2023. Although, there

are only eleven witnesses to be examined, the fact remains

that there is no overt act attributed to the appellant and the

Charge Sheet has also been filed on 31.10.2023 wherein the

appellant has been named.

In the circumstances, we find that the appellant has

made out a case for grant of bail.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:

“The appellant Vikram Jagdish Shete 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. 444 of 2023 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.

With these observations, the appeal is allowed.

………………………………………J.

[B.V. NAGARATHNA]

….……………………………………J.

[ NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]

NEW DELHI

OCTOBER 03, 2024

Print Page