Bombay High Court

SUNIL VISWASRAO PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant as there is no material to deny interim relief.

Summary

The applicant, Sunil Viswasrao Patil, sought anticipatory bail after his liberty had been protected by a prior order on 22 October 2024, which was based on the fact that co-accused had been granted pre‑arrest bail by the Sessions Court. The State opposed the application but could not differentiate the applicant's role from that of the co‑accused. The court found no evidence that the applicant had failed to cooperate with the investigation or misused his liberty. Consequently, the court saw no justification to deny interim relief. The anticipatory bail application was therefore allowed, confirming the interim order previously granted.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the pre‑arrest bail granted to co‑accused.

Subjects

anticipatory bail
pre‑arrest bail
liberty
co‑accused
investigation cooperation

Judgment

                                -1-
                                                    aba1793.24.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     929 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1793 OF 2024

Sunil Viswasrao Patil                          ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                       …..Respondent

Mr. M. V. Bhamre, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State.

                             CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                             DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.      Applicant’s liberty was protected by order dated 22.10.2024

by observing that the liberty of co-accused against whom exactly

same allegations are made is protected by Sessions Court by granting

pre-arrest bail to them.



2.    Learned APP though opposed the application was unable to

distinguish the role of the present Applicant as compared to the co-

accused.



3.    Applicant’s liberty was protected as back in October 2024.

There is nothing on record to show that the Applicant has no

cooperated in the investigation or misused the liberty.   In view of
                                -2-
                                                     aba1793.24.odt

these facts, this Court finds no reason or justification in not

confirming the interim relief. Hence, application is allowed in terms

of the interim order.



                                               ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…