Bombay High Court: The present bail application was filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), who was charged for multiple offences under Sections 306, 387, 506(2), 427 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), as well as charges under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’). A Single Judge Bench of Amit Borkar, J., held that the applicant was entitled to bail based on parity with the co-accused, who had already been granted bail by the same Court on the similar grounds.
Background:
On 29-1-2023, the informant’s brother was allegedly assaulted by a group of four individuals, including the applicant. The assailants physically assaulted the victim and used a metal seizer to forcibly extort money which caused fear and disruption in the locality. The next day, 30-1-2023, when the victim was closing his shop, he was reportedly threatened by the applicant’s co-accused not to approach the police authorities regarding the assault. On 31-1-2023, the informant was informed by his nephew that his brother had committed suicide. A suicide note was recovered, in which two assailants were named along with the applicant. The Sessions Court had earlier rejected the applicant’s bail, which led him to approach this Court.
The applicant relied on the bail order dated 4-4-2025 granted to a co-accused, asserting that both the accused were similarly placed in terms of role and antecedents. The applicant’s counsel argued that principle of parity should apply.
However, the APP for the State opposed the grant of bail, arguing that the order passed in the other co-accused’s case contained an incorrect observation to the effect that no Test Identification Parade (‘TIP’) was conducted. Also, it was submitted that the applicant’s role was made out from the statement of the co-accused under Section 18 MCOCA and other material collected during the investigation. The APP further argued that the State Government was likely to challenge the co-accused’s bail order passed, based on which the application sought parity, and therefore, requested that the present hearing be deferred until that challenge was decided.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that mere intention or contemplation to file an appeal against a bail did not reduce the legal effect of an existing bail order unless such an order was stayed, modified, or set aside by a higher forum. Merely stating that a proposal was “under consideration” was not sufficient to deprive another similarly situated accused of the benefit of parity. If an officer of the Prosecution Department or Police Department believed that the said order deserved to be challenged, such opinion must be translated into a concrete proposal, which contained cogent and justifiable reasons, supported by the record, and must be submitted to the Law and Judiciary Department of the Government of Maharashtra within a reasonable time.
The Court opined that judicial accountability and transparency in administrative decision-making demanded that the order rejecting appeal against the bail must reflect application of mind and record reasons which indicated consideration of the facts of the case and such reasoning formed the bedrock of the doctrine of fairness in administrative law.
The Court highlighted that in matters concerning where the liberty of a citizen was at stake, the law required promptness and responsibility from prosecuting authorities and the executive. Delay in acting on judicial orders could not become a ground to deny benefit of those very orders. Therefore, in matters where the State Government or prosecution intended to challenge a bail order passed by this Court, a proper and complete proposal, supported by necessary documents and justification, must be forwarded to the Law and Judiciary Department within two weeks from the date on which the bail order was uploaded on the official website of this Court.
The Court emphasised that these timelines and obligations were not mere procedural formalities but were essential safeguards to uphold the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and to prevent unnecessary pre-trial incarceration.
The Court noted that the order was passed on 4-4-2025 but no proposal was prepared nor was filed with the Law and Judiciary Department as of 18-6-2025. The Court observed that the liberty of person could not be adjourned indefinitely as it might affect liberty of individual person who was entitled to be released on bail based on doctrine of parity because of such delays.
The Court after examining material in the form of chargesheet, opined that it appeared that the applicant along with co-accused who was granted bail had been assigned similar role and the antecedents of both were also common. The Court opined that no other factor to distinguish their role or antecedents was brought to its notice which made the applicant entitled to the benefit of doctrine of parity.
The Court allowed the bail application of the applicant and further clarified that if the order of the co-accused’s bail was set aside in the future, it should be open for the prosecution to file an appropriate application.
[Chetan Kisan Patil v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 1304 of 2024, decided on 18-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Nitin Sejpal a/w Pooja Sejpal with Akshata Desai with Siddharth Gharat.
For the Respondent: Pallavi Dabholkar, APP
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
