SANJAY GOPAL CHANDELEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:43482
                                              -1-
                                                                  902-BA-1363-2026

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1363 OF 2026

                                SANJAY GOPAL CHANDELE
                                         VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                              .....
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Harshal Prakash Randhir
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. S. A. Gaikwad
                                              ..…

                                         CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                         DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
              PER COURT :


              1.         Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the

              learned APP for the respondent–State. With their assistance, I have

              perused the charge-sheet and the material placed on record.



              2.         The applicant seeks his release on regular bail in

              connection with Crime No. 108 of 2026, registered with Varangaon

              Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under

              Sections 3, 4 and 5 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

              The applicant was arrested on 13th April, 2026 and has remained

              in custody since then.



              3.         The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11 th April,

              2026, the police found two country-made pistols, four live
                                 -2-
                                                     902-BA-1363-2026

cartridges and a sword in the possession of co-accused Ashok Koli.

During the investigation, it was revealed that the said pistols had

allegedly been supplied to Ashok Koli by co-accused Arun Chavare.

According to the prosecution, Arun Chavare had purchased the

pistols from the present applicant for a consideration of

Rs.45,000/- each. The prosecution further relies upon the recovery

of another country-made pistol from the residence of the applicant

pursuant to information allegedly furnished by him. It is further

alleged that the applicant had obtained the pistols from co-accused

Sanjaysingh Pathwa, who had not been apprehended when the

charge-sheet was filed.



4.         Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the

applicant was not named in the FIR and that his alleged

involvement initially surfaced on the basis of the statement of a co-

accused. He submits that the evidentiary value of such a

statement, as well as the alleged recovery, would have to be

determined during trial. It is further submitted that co-accused

Ashok Koli, from whose possession the weapons were recovered,

and co-accused Arun Chavare, who allegedly procured the pistols

from the present applicant, have already been released on bail. The

applicant, therefore, claims parity with the said co-accused.
                                  -3-
                                                       902-BA-1363-2026

5.         Learned     Advocate         further   submits   that   the

investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. The

applicant has been in custody since 13th April, 2026, and his

further detention is not necessary for investigation. As regards the

criminal antecedents, learned Advocate submits that although

earlier offences have been registered against the applicant, he has

been released on bail in those matters and none of them has

resulted in a conviction. He, therefore, prays that the applicant be

released on bail by imposing appropriate conditions.



6.         Learned APP strongly opposes the application. He

submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious,

inasmuch as he is alleged to have supplied two country-made

pistols to a co-accused and another pistol has been recovered at his

instance. He particularly draws the attention of the Court to the

applicant's criminal antecedents, including earlier offences under

the Arms Act. According to the learned APP, the applicant was

released on bail in Crime No. 69 of 2026 and, shortly thereafter,

allegedly committed the present offence. It is submitted that the

applicant has repeatedly been involved in offences of a similar

nature despite having been granted bail by the Courts. The learned

APP, therefore, expresses a serious apprehension that, if released,

the applicant may again indulge in similar criminal activities. He
                                  -4-
                                                      902-BA-1363-2026

submits that such conduct deserves to be viewed seriously and

prays for rejection of the application.



7.          I have considered the rival submissions. The accusation

against the applicant cannot be regarded as insignificant. The

prosecution alleges that he was involved in the sale of unlicensed

firearms. Having regard to the nature of the allegation, Section 5

read with Section 25(1) of the Arms Act may be attracted. After

the amendment of 2019, the punishment prescribed under Section

25(1) is imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years,

which may extend to imprisonment for life, besides fine. The

gravity of the alleged offence is, therefore, a relevant consideration

while deciding the present application. However, whether the

prosecution ultimately establishes the alleged sale and the precise

offences attracted are matters to be determined at the trial.



8.          At the same time, the material relied upon by the

prosecution must be examined for the limited purpose of

determining whether the applicant's continued detention is

necessary. The applicant's alleged involvement initially emerged

from the statement of a co-accused. Such a statement made to the

police cannot, by itself, be treated as substantive proof against the

applicant. The alleged recovery of the third pistol will have to be
                                 -5-
                                                     902-BA-1363-2026

considered in accordance with the applicable provisions of the

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, including the proviso to

Section 23(2), insofar as the information distinctly relates to the

fact discovered. The admissibility, evidentiary value and reliability

of the material are matters for trial. It would not be appropriate to

record any conclusive finding on those aspects at this stage.



9.         The applicant has also relied upon the release of co-

accused Ashok Koli and Arun Chavare. However, parity cannot be

considered in isolation. The role attributed to the present applicant

is that of supplying firearms, and the prosecution also relies upon

the recovery of another pistol at his instance. His criminal

antecedents constitute an additional distinguishing circumstance.

The applicant's prayer for bail must, therefore, be considered

independently, having regard to his alleged role, the material

collected during investigation and the likelihood of misuse of

liberty.



10.        The applicant's criminal antecedents require particular

consideration. The application discloses five earlier crimes under

the Arms Act in which the applicant has been released on bail. The

police material and the order of the learned Sessions Court refer to

seven offences registered against him. The prosecution has also
                                 -6-
                                                     902-BA-1363-2026

alleged that the present offence was committed shortly after his

release on bail in Crime No. 69 of 2026. However, the precise date

of release, the conditions imposed in that matter and the present

status of those proceedings have not been satisfactorily established

from the material placed before this Court. No conviction in the

earlier cases has been shown. The registration of earlier offences

cannot be treated as proof of guilt, but the nature and recurrence of

the allegations are relevant while assessing the apprehension

expressed by the prosecution.



11.        The principles governing cancellation of bail are also

well settled. Subsequent conduct demonstrating misuse of liberty,

interference with the administration of justice or involvement in

further criminal activity may furnish grounds for seeking

cancellation. However, the mere registration of another crime does

not result in automatic cancellation of an earlier bail order. The

Court concerned must examine the nature of the subsequent

accusation, the material supporting it, the conditions of the earlier

bail order and the circumstances in which cancellation is sought.

The decision must rest upon judicial satisfaction and not merely

upon the opinion of the investigating agency.



12.        In the present case, the applicant has remained in
                                   -7-
                                                       902-BA-1363-2026

custody for more than five months. The investigation against him

is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. The weapons relied

upon by the prosecution have been recovered and seized. No

further custodial interrogation of the applicant is shown to be

necessary.     The   principal   apprehension   expressed     by   the

prosecution concerns the possibility of repetition of similar

offences after release.



13.           This apprehension is undoubtedly serious, particularly

in view of the applicant's antecedents and the nature of the present

accusation.     Nevertheless,    having   considered   the   material

presently available, the period of incarceration, completion of

investigation and the stage of the proceedings, I am of the view

that the applicant's further detention is not necessary at this stage.

The apprehension expressed by the prosecution can be addressed

by imposing stringent and enforceable conditions, including

restrictions upon his movement and regular reporting to the

police. The applicant must, however, understand that the liberty

granted to him is subject to strict compliance with those

conditions. In the event of misuse of liberty, the prosecution shall

be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail before the competent Court.



14.           Before parting with the matter, it is necessary to
                                 -8-
                                                    902-BA-1363-2026

address an issue of wider concern arising from the submissions of

the learned APP. This Court has come across cases in which

persons already released on bail are subsequently involved in

offences of a similar nature. The present case illustrates the

concern, although the applicant's alleged involvement in the

subsequent offence and any breach of an earlier bail order remain

to be established in accordance with law.



15.         The grant of bail is an exercise of judicial discretion

governed by the facts of each case and the applicable legal

principles. Equally, an order granting bail does not place an

accused beyond judicial scrutiny in respect of his subsequent

conduct. Where credible material indicates that an accused has

misused the liberty granted to him, it is necessary that such

material be brought promptly before the Court competent to

consider cancellation of bail.



16.         The difficulty arises when an accused, after being

released on bail in one crime, is involved in another crime, but the

investigating agency in the earlier crime is not informed of the

subsequent development. The Court which granted bail may

consequently remain unaware of circumstances which could be

relevant to the continuance of that relief. Such a situation may
                                  -9-
                                                     902-BA-1363-2026

arise particularly where the subsequent offence is registered at

another police station or in another district.



17.        The criminal justice system cannot function effectively

if material developments concerning the conduct of an accused on

bail remain confined to the records of an investigating agency

dealing with a subsequent offence. There must be a mechanism for

timely communication between the police officers concerned so

that appropriate proceedings, wherever warranted, may be

initiated before the competent Court.



18.        It is equally necessary to clarify that every subsequent

FIR does not necessarily establish misuse of liberty. The nature of

the allegations, their proximity to the earlier offence, the material

collected during investigation and the conditions imposed while

granting bail are all relevant considerations. The decision whether

to seek cancellation must be taken after examining these

circumstances. The ultimate decision whether bail deserves to be

cancelled rests exclusively with the competent Court.



19.        In this context, the Director General of Police,

Maharashtra, being the head of the State Police Force, is required

to ensure that an appropriate administrative mechanism is put in
                                 -10-
                                                     902-BA-1363-2026

place for reporting and examining cases in which persons released

on bail are subsequently involved in criminal offences. Such a

mechanism would assist the investigating agencies in discharging

their responsibilities and enable the competent Courts to consider

relevant subsequent developments whenever the circumstances so

warrant.



20.        Accordingly,    the    Director    General    of   Police,

Maharashtra, is directed to issue appropriate instructions to all

Police Commissioners, Superintendents of Police and other

concerned police officers throughout the State of Maharashtra,

providing for the following procedure.



21.        Whenever a person arrested or involved in a criminal

offence is found, upon verification, to have been released on bail in

an earlier criminal case, the Investigating Officer of the subsequent

crime shall ascertain the particulars of the earlier crime, the Court

which granted bail and, wherever available, the relevant bail order

and its conditions.



22.        Where the subsequent accusation concerns an offence

of a similar nature, or where the material collected during

investigation indicates a possible breach of the conditions of the
                                  -11-
                                                       902-BA-1363-2026

earlier bail order or misuse of liberty, the Investigating Officer shall

promptly communicate the relevant particulars and supporting

material to the Investigating Officer of the earlier crime. Where the

earlier crime was investigated by another police station or district,

the communication shall be made through the appropriate

supervisory officer, without unnecessary delay.



23.         Upon receipt of such communication, the Investigating

Officer of the earlier crime shall examine the subsequent material

along with the earlier bail order and its conditions. Where the

material discloses sufficient grounds for seeking cancellation of

bail, the Investigating Officer shall place the matter before the

concerned Public Prosecutor and take appropriate steps, through

the prosecution, for moving the competent Court in accordance

with law.



24.         The instructions shall further provide that such

communications and the action taken thereon are duly recorded.

The concerned supervisory police officer shall ensure that material

indicating possible misuse of bail is not overlooked merely because

the subsequent offence has been registered at another police

station or in another district.
                                 -12-
                                                      902-BA-1363-2026

25.        It is made clear that these directions are intended to

ensure timely communication, verification and consideration of

appropriate legal action. They shall not be construed as requiring

the police to seek cancellation of bail mechanically in every case in

which a subsequent FIR is registered. Nor shall they be construed

as authorising the police to cancel bail or to take any action

contrary to an order passed by a competent Court. Every

application for cancellation, if filed, shall be decided independently

by the Court concerned, upon consideration of the material placed

before it and after following the procedure prescribed by law.



26.        The aforesaid directions are issued in the interest of

effective administration of criminal justice and to ensure that the

investigating agencies place relevant subsequent developments

before the appropriate judicial forum. They do not express any

opinion on the guilt of the present applicant or any other accused

person, nor do they determine whether the applicant has breached

any condition imposed upon him in an earlier crime.



27.        Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the

Investigating Officer shall verify the particulars and conditions of

the bail granted in Crime No.69 of 2026 and the other relevant

earlier crimes. If the material collected in the present crime
                                   -13-
                                                        902-BA-1363-2026

furnishes sufficient grounds for seeking cancellation of bail in any

earlier case, appropriate steps may be taken before the competent

Court in accordance with law. This direction shall not be treated as

a finding that any earlier bail condition has been violated.


28.           The learned Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay,

Bench at Aurangabad, shall ensure that a copy of this order is

forwarded to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, within

one week from today. The Director General of Police shall issue the

necessary instructions within a further period of three weeks and

place a compliance report before this Court.



29.           In view of the foregoing discussion, the following order

is passed :

                                 ORDER

      (i)     The Bail Application is allowed.


      (ii)    The applicant, Sanjay Gopal Chandele, shall be released
              on bail in connection with Crime No. 108 of 2026,
              registered with Varangaon Police Station, District
              Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4
              and 5 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, upon
              furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
              Thousand only), with one or two solvent sureties in the
              like amount, subject to the following conditions:
                        -14-
                                                902-BA-1363-2026

(a)    The applicant shall not enter the territorial limits
of Bhusawal Taluka until framing of charge, except for
the purpose of attending the Investigating Officer, the
police station for compliance with the reporting
condition,   or   the   Court in        connection    with   the
proceedings. Before his release, the applicant shall
furnish to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court
his complete residential address outside Bhusawal
Taluka and his mobile number. He shall intimate any
change of address or mobile number in advance to the
Investigating Officer and the Trial Court.


(b)    The applicant shall report to the police station
having jurisdiction over his declared place of residence
on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon
until framing of charge. The applicant shall thereafter
report as and when directed by the Trial Court. The
officer concerned shall maintain a record of such
attendance. The applicant shall not be required to
report at the police station on a day when his personal
attendance before the Trial Court is required, provided
he produces proof of such attendance at his next
reporting date.


(c)    The applicant shall attend the Trial Court on every
date fixed for hearing, unless his personal attendance is
specifically exempted by that Court. He shall cooperate
with   the   trial   and       shall   not   seek   unnecessary
adjournments.
                              -15-
                                                     902-BA-1363-2026

        (d)    The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly,
        contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or
        any prosecution witness. He shall not tamper with the
        prosecution evidence or otherwise obstruct the course
        of justice.


        (e)    The applicant shall not leave India without prior
        permission of the Trial Court. If he possesses a passport,
        he shall deposit the same with the Trial Court within
        seven days of his release.


        (f) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence
        of a similar nature while on bail.


        (g) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid
        conditions or misuse of liberty, the prosecution shall be
        at liberty to move the competent Court for cancellation
        of bail in accordance with law.


(iii)   The Director General of Police, Maharashtra, shall issue
        appropriate instructions to the police authorities
        throughout the State in terms of paragraphs 20 to 25 of
        this order, within the period stipulated in paragraph 28.


(iv)    The learned Public Prosecutor shall forward a copy of
        this   order   to   the      Director   General   of   Police,
        Maharashtra, within one week from today and ensure
        that a compliance report is placed before this Court.
                                     -16-
                                                         902-BA-1363-2026

          (v)    The observations made in this order are prima facie and
                 confined to the adjudication of the present bail
                 application. The Trial Court shall decide the case
                 independently, on the evidence adduced before it,
                 without being influenced by any observation made
                 herein.


          (vi)   List the matter after four weeks, only for reporting
                 compliance with the directions issued to the Director
                 General of Police, Maharashtra.




                                             (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                     JUDGE




Tandale