Allowed

Shubham Shivaji Limhan v. State of Maharashtra

Anticipatory bail – Parity

Bombay HC4 May 2026ABA/1155/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1155 of 2026, Shubham Shivaji Limhan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided 10-06-2026 by Shivkumar Dige, J. Anticipatory bail granted on the principle of parity: two co-accused with identical allegations already released on anticipatory bail, investigation complete and charge-sheet filed, so custodial interrogati

What did the court decide?

In the event of arrest, the applicant to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.118 of 2025 (Velha Police Station, Pune) on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; a

Shubham Shivaji Limhan vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

30-ABA-1155-2026 (CR).doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1155 OF 2026

¶5

Shubham Shivaji Limhan ….Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

¶6

Mr. Akshay Badve along with Mr. Govind B. Munde, Advocate for Applicant.

¶7

Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.

¶8

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

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No.118 of 2025 registered with Velha Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 126(2), 189(2), 191(2), 304(2), 308(3) and 324(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶11

It is prosecution's case that on 12th December 2025, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant and demanded ransom of 30,000/- from him.₹

¶12

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.06.11 15:19:24 +0530

¶13

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the two co-accused, having similar allegations, have been released on anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence the applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity, and requested to allow the application.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

30-ABA-1155-2026 (CR).doc

¶16

Shubhada S Kadam

¶17

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant and demanded ransom from him. There are serious allegations against the applicant. Hence, his custodial interrogation is required, and requested to reject the application.

¶18

I have heard both learned counsel, perused FIR and documents produced on record. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The allegations against the two co-accused who are released on bail and the applicant, are the same. Hence, the applicant is entitled to

¶19

bail on the principle of parity. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, and I pass following order :

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.118 of 2025 registered with Velha Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

30-ABA-1155-2026 (CR).doc

¶26

Shubhada S Kadam

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Shubham Shivaji Limhan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Shivaji Limhan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dadasaheb Bapurao More vs Saritosh Arvind Patil

Mangesh Ashroba Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramakant D Shukla vs Securities Exchange Board of India

K Shabbir Babu vs State of Maharashtra

Dipak Sunil Veer vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Salim Sahikh Yaqub@ Chamda vs the State of Maharashtra