SC grants bail to Ahilyanagar murder accused after 10 years as undertrial

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Supreme Court has granted bail to Ahilyanagar resident Yogesh Pardhe, arrested in a 2015 murder and riot case, observing that the accused had spent more than 10 years in jail as an undertrial.

SC also set aside an earlier order of the Bombay high court’s Aurangabad bench rejecting his bail plea.A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order on May 18, while allowing an appeal filed by the accused man against the Sept 18, 2025 order of the Bombay HC’s Aurangabad bench denying him regular bail.The accused was arrested on Oct 2, 2015 in connection with a case registered for offences punishable under sections 302, 304, 201, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code along with sections 3(1)(3)(10) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The case relates to an incident that took place on May 16, 2015, following which, the FIR was lodged the same day.The SC noted that the accused had undergone incarceration for more than 10 years pending trial; except for a brief period during the Covid-19 pandemic when he was temporarily released pursuant to recommendations of the High Power Committee constituted for decongestion of prisons.The apex court also considered parity with co-accused, who had earlier been granted bail by the apex court on March 20 this year on the same ground of prolonged incarceration.

During the hearing, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, the counsel representing the Maharashtra government informed the SC that the state was not opposing the bail plea considering the “peculiar facts” of the matter and the period already undergone by the accused in custody.The apex court subsequently set aside the high court order and directed that the accused be released on bail on terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court. According to submissions made before the court, the defence argued that the accused’s name and role were not mentioned in the original complaint. The defence also relied on the deposition of complainant and prosecution witness, who allegedly failed to identify the accused during trial proceedings while identifying some other accused.The case was committed to the sessions court on July 25, 2016, and the trial has remained pending since then. Of the 79 prosecution witnesses listed in the chargesheet, 50 have been examined so far, while more than 25 are yet to depose.