Repeated Threats & Prior Preparation Point To Premeditated Attack: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Murder Accused
The Bench noted that flimsy and laconic reasons cannot justify grant of bail in serious offences.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has set aside the bail granted to two accused in a ghastly murder case where a man was set ablaze using petrol. The Court observed that discretionary relief of bail cannot be extended when the material on record prima facie indicates a premeditated, concerted attack executed with common intention in serious offences.
The Bench noted that the reasons assigned by the Bombay High Court and the trial Court were “flimsy and untenable in the eyes of law” as it had completely overlooked essential facts recorded in the FIR, including prior repeated threats, joint arrival in a vehicle carrying an inflammable fluid, and active participation during the attack.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The fact that the accused persons were prepared well in advance to commit some grave offence is prima facie borne out from the fact that the can containing petrol was carried in the vehicle in which all four accused persons had arrived at the crime scene. The time of the incident, the prior preparation of the accused persons to commit the crime and the repeated threats extended to the complainant party constitute significant and grave circumstances, which, when considered cumulatively, indicate the premeditated nature of the ghastly attack in which an innocent human being was burnt alive by pouring inflammable fluid on his body…the aforesaid circumstances weigh heavily against the grant of the discretionary relief of bail and disentitle the accused persons from claiming the indulgence of bail.”.
“…The reasons assigned by the High Court for granting bail are flimsy and untenable in the eyes of law. The High Court and the learned trial Court completely ignored the preceding facts where all the four accused persons continuously attacked the house of the complainant party threatening that they would not spare the complainant party in case Prajwal failed to apologize”, it noted further.
Senior Advocate Prakash D. Naik appeared for the appellant and Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, an FIR was registered at Satara Taluka Police Station under Sections 302, 307, 323, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the complaint filed by Anil Madhukar Shinde, four individuals arrived at his residence demanding an apology from his son regarding a previous dispute. Upon the complainant’s return home, the assailants aggressively confronted and assaulted him. Accused No. 1 (Shivjit Mane) retrieved a can of petrol from their vehicle, doused the complainant with it, and set him on fire with a matchstick while accomplices restrained him and recorded the act. The victim subsequently succumbed to his injuries.
Thereafter, the High Court granted regular bail to accused No. 4 (Jyotiraditya) on November 12, 2025, observing that he had merely recorded the incident and had no prior antecedents. On January 8, 2026, the High Court granted bail to accused No. 5 (Ranjit Mane) citing lack of physical participation. Relying on parity with Jyotiraditya, the trial court granted regular bail to accused No. 3 (Pruthviraj) on January 13, 2026.
However, the High Court rejected the bail application of accused No. 2 (Yash Gaikwad) on March 27, 2026, finding a prima facie common intention. Aggrieved, accused No. 2 challenged his bail rejection, while the State of Maharashtra appealed against the grant of bail to accused Nos. 3, 4, and 5.
Evaluating the submissions, the Court noted that the High Court and trial court assigned flimsy and untenable reasons for enlarging accused Nos. 3 and 4 on bail. Reaffirming principles from Ram Govind Upadhyay, Mahipal, and Shabeen Ahmad, the Bench held that courts must indicate judicious reasons for granting bail in heinous crimes. The Bench noted that the prior preparation, carrying a petrol can in the vehicle, and repeated threats demonstrated a pre-planned attack rather than a sudden quarrel. Regarding accused No. 5, the Bench affirmed his bail since he was not present at the spot and the conspiracy evidence against him was purely circumstantial.
In its operative directions, the Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals concerning accused No. 3 (Pruthviraj) and accused No. 4 (Jyotiraditya), setting aside their bail orders and directing them to surrender within three weeks. The appeals filed by accused No. 2 (Yash Gaikwad) and the State against accused No. 5 (Ranjit Mane) were dismissed. The trial court was directed to complete the trial within two years.
Cause Title: Yash Mahesh Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 917)
Appearances:
Appellant: Aditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Prakash D. Naik, Sr. Adv., Shubhangi Parulekar, Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, AOR, Advocates.
Respondent: Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR, Damini Vishwakarma, B Dhananjay, Sachin Patil, AOR Vishnu Priya, Adnan Aboobacker, Advocates.