Bombay High Court
RAMESH NAGNATHRAO RODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to all applicants on the same terms, citing parity and the absence of any distinguishing circumstances.
Summary
The applicants, employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, were charged under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly obtaining personal loans and having the amounts deducted from their salaries. They filed anticipatory bail applications, arguing that a co‑accused in a similar case had been granted pre‑arrest bail on 11 March 2026, and therefore parity demanded the same relief. The State opposed the bail but could not demonstrate any material difference justifying denial. The Court observed that the role and alleged conduct of the present applicants were identical to that of the co‑accused and that no other circumstances warranted a different approach. Consequently, the Court allowed all anticipatory bail applications, directing the applicants to furnish a Rs.50,000 personal bond with two sureties and to comply with standard bail conditions such as cooperating with the investigation and not tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants under the specified sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the principle of parity with a co‑accused previously granted bail warrants the same relief for the present applicants.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- parity
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bond conditions
- investigation cooperation
- loan deduction offence
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42423
24-ABA-401-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 401 OF 2026
Parmeshwar Bapurao Godmale ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 399 OF 2026
Baljitsing Gagansingh Mahir ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 403 OF 2026
Balaram Nivrati Kale ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 397 OF 2026
Ramesh Nagnathrao Rode ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 372 OF 2026
1. Sadanand Digambarrao Girewad
2. Maroti Anandrao Hendre
3. Dilip Lalu Rathod
4. Ramkishan Narayanrao Gudappe
5. Sanjay Narsing Lashkare
6. Dagdu Pundlik Majalkar
7. Shyam Marotirao Pilangwad ..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
1 / 4
24-ABA-401-26.odt
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 406 OF 2026
Kapil Nagnathrao Jadhav ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 400 OF 2026
Jagbirsingh Bhagwansingh Kottirthwale (Sardar) ..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
....
Mr. A.B. Dhongade and Mr. N.Y. Kingaonkar, Advocates for applicants in
respective applications
Ms. P.J. Bharad, A.P.P. for respondent - State
....
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.
46 of 2026 registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Dist. Nanded for the
offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. In short, it is the case of prosecution that the applicants, who are
employees of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nanded, had
obtained personal loan and the said amounts were deducted from their salary.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that similarly placed
2 / 4
24-ABA-401-26.odt
accused has granted pre-arrest bail by order dated 11 th March, 2026. They,
therefore, seek liberty for the applicants on the ground of parity.
4. Learned A.P.P. opposed to grant relief to the applicants, however
he is unable to convince this Court as to why liberty should not be granted to
the applicants on the ground of parity.
5. Considering the similarity of role attributed to the present
applicants as against the role alleged against the co-accused, who was granted
pre-arrest bail in the respective pre-arrest bail application and as there are no
other circumstances to take any different view, present applications stand
allowed on the same terms. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(I) All the Anticipatory Bail Applications are allowed.
(II) In Anticipatory Bail Application No. 401 of 2026, in the
event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No.
46 of 2026 registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Dist.
Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),
316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, he be released on furnishing P.R. bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two
solvent sureties in the like amount on the following
conditions :-
(a) The applicant is directed to attend the concerned police
station as and when called for by the Investigating
Officer.
3 / 4
24-ABA-401-26.odt
(b) The applicant shall also cooperate with the
investigation.
(c) The applicant shall not pressurse the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(III) In all other applications, the interim relief granted to stand
confirmed on the conditions mentioned therein.
( R.M. JOSHI, J. )
SSD
4 / 4
Checking your session…