Bombay High Court
DHEERAJ SURENDRA UPADHYAY @ DHEERAJ SURENDRA UPADHYAYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ABHAY MANTRI
Holding
Bail was granted to the accused with a personal bond, security bond and specific conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Dheeraj Surendra Upadhyay, who was arrested for possession of illegal firearms under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Station Act, 1951. The applicant claimed innocence and asserted that he had no criminal antecedents, while the State highlighted five prior offences ranging from IPC offences to NDPS and Motor Vehicles Act violations. The court noted that the investigation was complete, the co‑accused had been released on bail, and the applicant had been in custody since September 2025. Balancing the seriousness of the charges against the applicant’s right to liberty, the court decided that indefinite detention was inappropriate but imposed stringent bail conditions. Consequently, bail was granted on a personal and security bond of Rs 1,00,000 with sureties, subject to non‑tampering with evidence and restriction on leaving India without court permission.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of offences under the Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Station Act despite a history of prior criminal convictions.
- Whether the existence of multiple prior offences justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the court can impose conditions such as non‑tampering with evidence and travel restrictions while granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 3
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 114(1), 115(2), 3(5), 352
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 145, 147, 149, 279, 326, 336, 37, 504, 506
- Motor Vehicles Act — s. 184
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 4(a), 5
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- Maharashtra Police Station Act
- prior criminal record
- criminal procedure
- court conditions
- firearms possession
Judgment
16-BA-144-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2026
Dheeraj Surendra Upadhyay
@ Dheeraj Surendra Upadhyay …Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
----
None for the Applicant.
Ms. S. G. Talhar, A.P.P. for the State.
R.G. Gujav, PSI, Malad Police Station -SGT is present.
----
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 27th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :-
1. The Applicant has moved this application to release him on bail in
connection with Crime No. 553 of 2025 registered with Malad Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and
Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Station Act, 1951.
2. Heard the learned A.P.P. for the State. None appears for the Applicant
when the matter is called out, either in the Court Hall or through Video
Conferencing mode. Perused the application, chargesheet and records.
3. It appears that on 16th September, 2025, the Applicant was found in
possession of a Gavathi Katta / Country-made Katta (firearm) and one foreign-
made pistol, two magazines, and several live cartridges. On inquiry, he stated
that he had purchased the said weapons from the co-accused. Accordingly, the
offence was registered against him for possessing the firearms without a license.
S. Bang ...1
16-BA-144-2026
4. In the Application, it is contended that he has not committed any
offence and that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present crime. He
has no criminal antecedents. The co-accused has been released on bail, and the
investigation is completed. Therefore, on the grounds of parity, the applicant
should be released on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. vehemently resisted the application on
the ground that, though the chargesheet has been filed, the Applicant is not
entitled to bail as he has criminal antecedents. Five offences have been
registered against him at various police stations. Accordingly, learned A.P.P. has
tendered the report before the Court, the same is taken on record and marked as
‘X’ for identification purposes. I would like to reproduce those offences as under
:-
(1) Kasturba Police Station, Mumbai, Crime No. 67/2008 under Sections 326,
504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2)Dahisar Police Station, Mumbai Crime No. 323/2011 under Sections 143, 145, 147,
149 read with 37 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3)Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai Crime No. 1307/2023 under Section 4(a), 5 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
(4)M.H.B. Colony Police Station, Mumbai Crime No. 422/2023 under Sections 279, 336
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(5)Kasturba Police Station, Mumbai Crime No. 219/2025 under Sections 115(2), 114(1),
352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. Therefore, learned A.P.P. urged for rejection of the application.
7. Having gone through the record, it appears that since 16th September,
2025, the Applicant is behind bars. The police have recovered the firearm and
cartridges from his possession. The investigation has been completed, and the
S. Bang ...2
16-BA-144-2026
chargesheet has been filed in the Court. I have also considered offences
registered against the Applicant and allegations made therein, as well as the fact
that the co-accused has been released on bail. In view of the above, in my
opinion, it would not be appropriate to detain the applicant in jail for an
indefinite period. However, to dispel the apprehension of the prosecution,
stringent conditions can be imposed on the applicant while releasing him on
bail.
8. As a result, the Application is allowed.
9. The Applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 553
of 2025 registered with Malad Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 3 & 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Station Act, 1951, upon furnishing a Personal Bond and
Security Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like
amount. On the following conditions: -
i) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner till the conclusion of the trial.
ii) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Trial Court.
10. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
S. Bang ...3
Checking your session…