Sani @ Nana Balaso Pardeshi vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sani @ Nana Balaso Pardeshi vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail: in the event of arrest, the applicant to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.213 of 2024 (Malegaon Police Station, Pune) on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, and to attend the concerned police station as and when required.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, whose name is not mentioned in the FIR, is entitled to anticipatory bail in Crime No.213 of 2024 on the principle of parity with co-accused who have been released on anticipatory bail. +1 more

Court's answer

The name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, and since two co-accused named in the FIR, having similar allegations, have been released on anticipatory bail by this Court, the applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

Ratio / Principle

Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.

Key takeaways

In the event of arrest, the applicant is to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.213 of 2024 on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, and shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.ratio¶20
The observations in the order are made only for the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by these observations.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail — Applicant's name not mentioned in FIR — two co-accused named in the FIR, having similar allegations, already released on anticipatory bail by the High Court — applicant entitled to bail on principle of parity — custodial interrogation not required — in the event of arrest, applicant to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.213 of 2024, Malegaon Police Station, Pune (offences punishable under Sections 109, 140(1), 118(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951) on P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount — applicant to attend police station as and when required — observations confined to the purpose of granting bail; Trial Court to decide case on own merits uninfluenced by the order.

28-ABA-1151-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1151 OF 2026

Sani @ Nana Balaso Pardeshi ….Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

Mr. Ghansham Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. Geeta Mulekar, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2026.

P.C. :

The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No.213 of 2024 registered with Malegaon Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 109, 140(1), 118(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

It is prosecution's case that on 8th September 2024, the coaccused assaulted the first informant with the intention to kill him. It is alleged that the applicant was part of the said group.

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.06.11 15:23:12 +0530

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and his name was dragged into the present case after three to four days. The co-accused,

Page 1 of 3

28-ABA-1151-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

against whom similar allegations are made, have been released on anticipatory bail, and hence, the applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity, and requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant, along with coaccused, assaulted the first informant with the intention to kill him. There are specific allegations against the applicant. Hence, his custodial interrogation is required, and requested to reject the application.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused FIR and documents produced on record. The name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. The two co-accused, whose names are mentioned in the FIR and having similar allegations as the applicant, have been released on anticipatory bail by this Court. Considering these facts, the applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and I pass following order :

ORDER

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.213 of 2024 registered with Malegaon Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

Page 2 of 3

28-ABA-1151-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3