Introduction:
In a development that has reignited public attention on one of India’s most widely discussed criminal cases, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a convicted accused pending appeal in the case concerning the assassination of rationalist and anti-superstition activist Narendra Dabholkar. The case, Sharad Kalaskar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), arises from a conviction delivered by a special court in 2024, which had found the appellant guilty under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for his role in Dabholkar’s murder.
The facts of the case date back to August 20, 2013, when Dabholkar was shot dead by two assailants on a motorcycle during his morning walk in Pune. A prominent social reformer, Dabholkar was the founder of the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti and had been actively campaigning against superstitious practices and for rational thinking. His assassination shocked the nation and triggered widespread demands for a thorough and impartial investigation.
Initially investigated by the local police, the case was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2014 following directions from the Bombay High Court. The investigation spanned several years and led to the arrest of multiple accused, including Sharad Kalaskar and Sachin Andure, who were identified as the alleged shooters. The trial commenced in 2021, although the sessions case had been instituted earlier in 2016.
By its judgment dated May 10, 2024, the special court convicted Kalaskar and Andure for murder with common intention but acquitted three other accused, including those alleged to be part of a broader conspiracy. Notably, the court did not find sufficient evidence to convict any of the accused under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or the Arms Act.
Following his conviction, Kalaskar filed an appeal before the High Court and sought suspension of his sentence along with bail pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The application came up before a division bench comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsingh Bhonsale, who ultimately allowed the plea for bail, subject to conditions.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellant’s case for bail was rooted in established principles governing suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal. It was argued that the conviction recorded by the trial court was based on evidence that was open to serious doubt, particularly with regard to the identification of the accused as one of the assailants. The appellant contended that the prosecution’s case suffered from inconsistencies and lacked the degree of certainty required to sustain a conviction for a grave offence like murder.
A central plank of the appellant’s argument was that the High Court, while considering an application for suspension of sentence, is not required to conduct a full reappreciation of evidence but must assess whether there are arguable points that merit consideration in appeal. It was submitted that where the evidence is not unimpeachable and raises substantial doubts, continued incarceration during the pendency of a lengthy appeal would amount to undue hardship.
The appellant further emphasized that appeals in serious criminal cases often take several years to be finally heard and decided, owing to the heavy pendency of cases. In such circumstances, denying bail would effectively result in the appellant serving a significant portion of the sentence before his appeal is adjudicated, thereby rendering the appellate remedy illusory.
Additionally, it was pointed out that the appellant had been granted bail in a separate but related case concerning the murder of Govind Pansare by the Kolhapur bench of the High Court in October 2025. This, according to the appellant, demonstrated that courts had previously found it appropriate to grant him liberty in similar circumstances.
On the other hand, the CBI strongly opposed the grant of bail, arguing that the offence in question was of an extremely serious nature involving the targeted killing of a social activist. The prosecution maintained that the conviction recorded by the trial court was based on a careful evaluation of evidence and should not be lightly interfered with at the interim stage.
The CBI contended that granting bail to a person convicted of such a grave offence could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and send a wrong signal, particularly in cases involving attacks on individuals promoting social reform. It also argued that the evidence on record sufficiently established the involvement of the accused and that there was no justification for suspending the sentence.
Further, the prosecution sought a stay of the bail order for four weeks, presumably to enable it to challenge the decision before a higher forum. This request reflected the seriousness with which the agency viewed the matter and its intent to contest the grant of bail.
Court’s Judgment:
The Bombay High Court, after considering the rival submissions, allowed the application for bail and directed the release of the appellant on furnishing a bail bond of ₹50,000. While the detailed reasoning of the Court is awaited, the observations made during the pronouncement provide significant insight into the basis of the decision.
A key factor that appears to have weighed with the Court was the presence of doubts regarding the identification of the appellant as one of the assailants. The bench explicitly noted that it had “raised doubts over the identity of the applicant as the assailant,” indicating that the evidence linking the accused to the crime was not free from ambiguity. This observation is crucial, as identification evidence often plays a decisive role in criminal trials, and any uncertainty in this regard can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.
The Court’s approach aligns with established legal principles governing the grant of bail after conviction. While the presumption of innocence no longer applies once a person has been convicted, appellate courts are empowered to suspend the sentence and grant bail if the case presents arguable points or if the conviction is not based on unimpeachable evidence. The objective is to ensure that the right to appeal remains meaningful and that an accused is not subjected to prolonged incarceration in cases where the conviction may ultimately be overturned.
Equally significant was the Court’s refusal to grant a stay on its own bail order, despite the request made by the CBI. The bench categorically rejected the plea, stating that in light of the doubts it had expressed regarding the identity of the accused, there was no justification for staying the order. This indicates a strong degree of confidence in the correctness of the decision to grant bail.
The Court’s order also reflects a balancing exercise between competing considerations. On one hand is the gravity of the offence and the societal interest in ensuring that perpetrators of serious crimes are brought to justice. On the other is the individual’s right to liberty and the need to prevent undue hardship arising from prolonged incarceration during the pendency of an appeal.
It is important to note that the grant of bail does not amount to an acquittal or a finding on the merits of the case. The conviction recorded by the trial court remains in force unless and until it is set aside by the appellate court. The grant of bail merely suspends the execution of the sentence, allowing the appellant to remain at liberty while the appeal is heard.
The case also highlights the complexities involved in prosecuting crimes that are alleged to be part of larger conspiracies involving ideological or organizational affiliations. While the prosecution had sought to establish a broader conspiracy behind Dabholkar’s murder, the trial court’s acquittal of several co-accused and the High Court’s observations regarding identification evidence suggest that the evidentiary foundation of the case may be subject to closer scrutiny in appeal.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail underscores the principle that even in serious criminal cases, the rights of the accused must be carefully safeguarded, particularly when there are substantial questions to be examined in appeal. The final outcome of the case will ultimately depend on the High Court’s detailed evaluation of the evidence during the appellate proceedings, which will determine whether the conviction can be sustained.