Abhay Vikas Khillare vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant/accused has challenged the order dated 27/03/2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 92 of 2026, thereby declined to release the appellant/accused on bail in connection with Crime No. 292 of 2025 registered with Police Station, Pusad City, District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Section 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 3(5) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989.

Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both sides, I have gone through the record. It is a matter of record that the Crime No. 292 of 2025 was registered with Pusad City Police Station for the above offences on the basis of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 therein alleged that, on 12/05/2025 at about 8.45 p.m., when the informant and his brother Sanjay were distributing sweet milk (kheer) near Buddha Vihar on the Buddha Purnima, the present appellant/accused Abhay Vikas Khillare, along with others, visited there and started abusing them. At that time, another accused Vijay Wadve visited there with knife and uttered that he would not leave Surendra and would finish him.

Thereafter, all the accused persons initially assaulted the deceased Surendra. Accused Vijay Ananda Wadve assaulted Surnendra on his back, stomach and forearm. As a result, Surendra fell down, however, all the assailants again assaulted him with fists and blows. When the informant shouted for help and rushed to save his brother, accused Vijay Wadve and his brother Ajay Wadve pushed him away. Thereafter, his brother Surendra started fleeing from the spot through the lane of Buddha Vihar but at that time, the present appellant/accused put his legs between the legs of Surendra (deceased) as a result of which he was fell down. Thereafter, accused/ Vijay Wadve assaulted the deceased with knife and committed his murder.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that, on 10/02/2026 this Court passed an order in Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2025 (Swapnil Gyaneshwar Bawane Vs State of Maharashtra and another) and enlarged the appellant/accused on bail. Therefore, it is submitted that the present appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further canvassed that the role attributed to the present appellant is not serious but as per the prosecution case, the appellant/accused had only obstructed the deceased when he was fleeing away from the lane of Buddha Vihar. Thereafter, the main accused (Vijay Wadve), who was armed with a knife, assaulted the deceased. Therefore, considering the role played by the accused Swapnil Gyaneshwar Bawane, the present appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the appellant invited attention of this Court to the history narrated by the Medical Officer. The deceased was hospitalized at Global Super Specialty Hospital, Nanded, from 13/05/2025 and the Medical Officer recorded the history as follows :- “21 years male b/b relatives with A/H/O assault with knife by friend due to argument between two at around 9.30 to 12.00 a.m. on 12/05/2025 at Pusad”. Therefore, submits that medical history recorded by the Medical Officer clearly shows that, the dispute arose between two friends and that the incident occurred on account of sudden provocation and as per the medical record, deceased was discharge against medical advice. Therefore, the material placed on record by the Investigating Officer along with charge-sheet prima-facie appears that there were no planning between the accused persons to eliminate the deceased.

Per contra, learned APP and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that, on 12/05/2025 at about 8.45 p.m. the informant, his brother as well as other were distributing kheer to the people gathered near the Buddha Vihar in Shivaji Ward. At that time, the accused persons, namely Vijay Anand Wadhawe, Ajay Ananda Wadve, Abhay Vikas Khillare (present appellant) and Swapil Gyaneshwar Bawane came to the spot near Buddha Vihar and started abusing Surendra. The accused Vijay Wadve visited at the spot with a knife and uttered that he would not leave Surendra and would kill him. Thereafter, all the accused persons started assaulting the deceased Surendra with fists, kicks and blows. Accused Vijay Ananda Wadve assaulted with knife stabbed the deceased Surendra on his back, chest and stomach with a knife with an intention to kill him, and when the deceased escaped from the clutches of the Ananda, started running from the lane, at that time, the present appellant/accused put his legs between the legs of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down. Thereafter, the main accused, Vijay Wadve, again assaulted the deceased with a knife multiple times and committed his murder. Therefore, the role played by the appellant/accused obstructing the deceased from fleeing away from the spot amounts to helping the main accused while committing the crime. Hence, the role played by the present appellant/accused is not at par with the accused Swapnil Gyaneshwar Bawane, who is released on bail by this Court on 10/02/2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2025, and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Needless to mention here that, as per the contents of the FIR, the present appellant was associated with other accused, namely Vijay Wadve, Sanjay Wadve and Swapil Gyaneshwar Bawane who is enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10/02/2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2025.

On perusal of the FIR, it prima-facie appears that the main accused/Vijay Wadve, stabbed the deceased with knife on multiple times. When the deceased started running from the spot through the lane leading to Buddha Vihar, at that time, present appellant/accused put his legs between the legs of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and soon thereafter, the accused/Vijay Wadve, who again stabbed the deceased with knife on multiple times on various parts of the body and caused homicidal death.

As per the P.M. Report, the medical officer found multiple injuries is as under :-

[SA-Gaikwad] Resident Doctor Dept. Of Forensic Medicine Dr.S.C.Govt. Medical College. Vishnupuri Nanded-111600

[Dr. K. Rathod] Resident Doctor Dept. Of Forensic Medicine Dr.S.C. Govt Medical College Vishnupuri Nanded-111008

[Dr. A.J Pundge] Assistant Professor Dept. Of Forensic Medicine, Dr.S.C.Govt. Medical College, Vishnupuri Nanded-431606.

The role played by the present appellant/accused is that, when the deceased started running from the Boudha Vihar lane, the present appellant/accused obstructed him from fleeing by putting his legs between the legs of the deceased. When the deceased fell down, accused Vijay Wadve came there and stabbed the deceased multiple times. Therefore, the role played by the present appellant/accused is not at par with the role played by another accused, namely Swapnil Gyaneshwar Bawane, who is released on bail vide order dated 10/02/2026 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2025. Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides about common intention to commit the crime. Taking into consideration the roll played by the present appellant/accused while committing the crime, it appears that the present appellant/accused ultimately helped the main accused. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence as well as life imprisonment provided under Section 103 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and as such, the role attributed to the present appellant/accused, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant/accused on bail.

On 27/03/2026, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Pusad, passed the impugned order and declined to grant bail on the ground that, as per the evidence available on record, the appellant had put his leg between the legs of the deceased while he was running to save his life. Therefore, the learned trial Court found that the appellant had played a material role in the commission of the crime.

Therefore, findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are just and proper and do not call from any interference. No substantial ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per Rule.