The Bombay High Court recently delivered a bail order in which it dealt with key aspects of granting bail, especially concerning a young accused. In the case of Tejas Shamsunder Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [2025: BHC-AS: 5112], the Bombay High Court considered the grant of bail, with specific attention to the potential loss of educational opportunities for the accused. The judgment supports the view that depriving an accused person of their education during the period of trial can amount to a double punishment, particularly when the accused is young and has a future to look forward to.
General considerations for granting bail
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), bail provisions are outlined in Sections 436 to 450, with clear distinctions between bailable and non-bailable offenses. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sannhita, 2023(BNSS) has repealed the CrPC, however crimes reported and being tried prior to July 1, 2024 will continue to be governed by IPC and CrPC.
The following factors could be broadly understood as the checklist before the court grants a Bail, or at least they should be, according to the Supreme Court as stated in the case of State of UP vs. Poosu [(1976) 3 SCC 1] and later reiterated in Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttarakhand [2007 (12) SCC 1] and recently in Ajwar vs. Waseem [2024 INSC 438].
- Securing appearance at trial: The primary objective of arrest and detention is to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial and to guarantee their availability to receive the sentence if found guilty. If the accused’s presence can be reasonably ensured without arrest and detention, it is unjust to deprive them of their freedom.
- Nature and seriousness of the offence: Courts consider the nature and seriousness of the alleged offense, the character of the evidence, and circumstances unique to the accused when deciding on bail.
- Interests of society: The larger interests of the public and the state are also crucial. Factors such as previous convictions, criminal records, and the likelihood of repeating the offense if released on bail are taken into account. Recently, the Supreme Court had denied bail to a person in a case after it observed that the same person has been an accused in multiple heinous crimes (Sushant Kumar Dhalsamanta vs. State of Odisha).[1]
- Judicial discretion: Granting bail involves judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously; mechanical rejection should be avoided.
Specific considerations for certain accused
- Minors and Women: Courts may direct the release on bail of any person under 16 years of age, any woman, or any sick or infirm person accused of an offense (Section 437, CrPC).
Conditions for bail:
- Conditions to ensure justice: Courts granting bail have the power to set any condition they consider necessary in the interest of justice.
- Deposit of money: Courts can permit an accused person to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing a personal bond and providing surety.
- Reporting to authorities: Directing the applicant to report to the investigating officer is a common condition to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
Background:
The bail application was filed by Tejas Shamsunder Shinde, a 20-year-old student pursuing a Bachelor of Management Studies, who had a good academic record. Shinde was seeking bail in connection with an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — murder. The victim in this case was Shinde’s 69-year-old father, who was unwell and bedridden at the time of the incident, which occurred on February 22, 2023, at approximately 5:00 p.m.
Facts:
- The victim was unwell and bedridden, requiring assistance for his basic needs, which Shinde, having returned from college at 1:30 p.m., provided.
- The father and son had a history of verbal altercations, with the father often abusing Shinde and his mother.
- An altercation occurred at 5:00 p.m. when Shinde opposed his father taking certain un-prescribed medications.
- The altercation escalated, and Shinde inflicted blows on his father with a millstone and then used a kitchen knife to inflict a fatal wound on his neck.
- Shinde then went to the police station and confessed to the crime.
Arguments:
- Applicant: Applicant’s counsel argued that Shinde was a young student with a bright future and that the incident was not premeditated. She emphasised Shinde’s academic achievements and the circumstances leading to the incident. Granting bail would allow him to continue his education and prevent him from becoming a hardened criminal.
- Respondent (State of Maharashtra): Respondent’s counsel argued against the application, pointing to the medical report and the nature of the injuries, contending that it was a cold-blooded murder. She highlighted the cruelty of the act, where Shinde initially inflicted blows with a millstone and then used a kitchen knife to ensure his father’s death.
Court’s observations and reasoning:
The court acknowledged the gruesome nature of the murder, the victim’s medical condition, and the fact that Shinde had been assisting him. The trigger for the incident was identified as the father’s constant abuse towards Shinde and his mother. The court observed that Shinde’s mind “crossed the threshold” due to the repeated abuse, leading to the fatal act (Para 16). The court considered Shinde’s age (20 years) and his status as a student. The court referenced a Delhi High Court judgment in Siddharth Jain v. Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies [2015 SCC Online Del 1342], emphasizing the wide powers of the court to deal with young offenders and the importance of preventing recidivism. The court also cited Ishar Das v. State of Punjab [1973 (2) SCC 65], highlighting the purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act to reform offenders. The court noted that Shinde voluntarily confessed to the crime, indicating contrition. The court recognised that exclusion from education would be an added punishment for a student. The court expressed hope that Shinde would reform and rehabilitate himself. The court viewed the situation as a result of grave provocation due to the victim’s repeated abuse.
Decision
The court granted bail to Shinde, emphasising the opportunity for him to complete his management degree studies. Shinde was directed to be released on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties. Conditions were imposed, including reporting to the investigating officer, cooperating with the trial, and not influencing witnesses. The court hoped Shinde would continue his studies and become a good citizen. The observations, as per the court, were prima facie and for the purpose of granting bail only and should not influence the trial. The bail application, thus, was allowed and disposed of.
Consideration of loss of educational opportunity
In Tejas Shamsunder Shinde, the judge’s consideration of the loss of educational opportunity as factor in granting bail is an innovative tool to ease the restrictions on bail, especially in offences like murder and particularly in patricide cases.
- Rehabilitation and reintegration: The judge recognized that allowing the accused to continue their education supports their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This aligns with the principle that punishment should aim to reform, not just penalize.
- Preventing hardened criminality: By facilitating the continuation of education, the court aimed to prevent the accused from becoming hardened criminals. This proactive approach addresses the root causes of crime and focuses on positive development.
- Balancing justice and humanity: The decision reflects a balanced approach, considering the seriousness of the offense (Section 302 of IPC) while also acknowledging the accused’s potential for reform and the long-term benefits of education.
- Avoiding double punishment: Depriving an undertrial of educational opportunities effectively imposes a double punishment: first, the deprivation of liberty, and second, the loss of a crucial developmental phase of life.
The court stated as follows in relation to the loss of education and how it affects the individual:
“It should also be noted that in a case where an offender is undergoing studies, his exclusion from education for a period of time is an added layer of punishment over and above what a non-student accused may be subjected to. This is because a student undergoing incarceration suffers loss of precious academic time which cannot be bartered for any wealth in the world. He also constantly witnesses his peers moving ahead in life than compared to him and when the frustration becomes insurmountable such frustration can create an emotion of rebellion, which, coupled with the exposure to criminality in prison, can easily gain traction and push him to become a hardened criminal.”
The court essentially gave a sort of primacy to the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution without explicitly mentioning it. This could open doors to approaches where, even in purportedly serious offences, bail could be sought—in addition to the established grounds— on the ground of violation of fundamental rights in a disproportionate manner.
This judgment serves as a reminder that the law is not static and that courts have the discretion to adapt their rulings to the evolving needs of society. It highlights the importance of preventing recidivism by addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and fostering positive development in young offenders.
(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)
[1] Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 17256/2024
Related:
Between Bail and Jail, how authorities bypass law and jurisprudence
BHU students granted bail 17 days after Manusmriti protest arrests
Bombay High Court grants bail to Rona Wilson and Sudhir Dhawale in Bhima Koregaon case