Bombay High Court

SANJAY KASHIRAM MOHITEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

Bail was granted to the applicant on the principle of parity.

Summary

The High Court considered the bail application of Sanjay Kashiram Mohite, who was charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC) and several provisions of the IPC for allegedly protecting a gang leader (A1) by filing a false police representation and receiving money. The prosecution argued that Mohite’s actions amounted to a serious offence and that bail should be denied. The defence highlighted that Mohite has no prior criminal record and pointed to the principle of parity, noting that another accused (A7) with multiple antecedents had been granted bail after prolonged detention. The court observed that Mohite had already been in custody for over five years, longer than A7, and that the trial had been delayed despite prosecution examining witnesses. Weighing the prolonged pre‑trial incarceration against the nature of the allegations, the court decided that bail was appropriate on the parity principle. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a Rs 50,000 bond, sureties, and strict conditions regarding attendance, non‑interference with evidence, and reporting. The application was disposed with the bail order.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the MCOC Act despite allegations of filing false representations and receiving money to protect a gang member.
Whether the principle of parity with other accused who have longer custody periods justifies bail.
Whether the length of pre‑trial detention outweighs the seriousness of the alleged offences for bail purposes.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 195-A, 212, 224, 384, 385, 387, 392, 420, 506(ii), 507 r/w 120B
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), 4
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 — s. 30
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 37(1)(3) r/w 135

Subjects

bail
MCOC Act
organized crime
parity principle
false representation
extortion
pre‑trial detention
conditions of bail

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
WAKLE
MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC
WAKLE MANOJ
MANOJ JANARDHAN
JANARDHAN Date:
2026.09.03
13:20:16
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1579 OF 2026
Sanjay Kashiram Mohite …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala a/w Adv. Pradyumna Agrawal, Adv. Anshu
Agrawal & Adv. Bhushan Shinde, for the Applicant.
Mr. Mahesh Mule, SPP a/w Adv.Prathamesh Bhosale and Mr. T. G.
Khan, APP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2. Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with MCOC
Special Case No.1322 of 2021, pending on the file of learned
Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge under MCOC Act,
Greater Mumbai. Said case arising out of an FIR bearing Crime
No.286 of 2021, registered with Dadar Railway Police Station,
Mumbai Railway for the offence punishable under Sections 384,
385, 387, 392, 195-A, 212, 224, 420, 506(ii), 507 r/w 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4),
3(5) and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,
1999 (“MCOC Act”), Sections 30 of the Maharashtra Money
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and Sections 37(1)(3) r/w 135 of
the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, on the Report dated 7th April,
2021 lodged by first informant.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 7th April, 2021, at about
14.45 hours, at Dadar Railway Station, Accused No.1, leader of the
organized gang syndicate demanded extortion money Rs.3,500/-
Page 1 of 5
MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC

from the informant. As the informant did not pay that amount, A1
snatched 1150 mask worth of Rs.7475/-, which the informant was
carrying for the purpose of sale. Therefore, the informant lodged
the Report. Initially, the aforesaid crime was registered under
Sections 387 and 392 of IPC against A1. Thereafter, A1 absconded.

Meanwhile, certain accused persons threatened the
informant to compel him to withdraw his report complaint but he
did not. It is alleged that, the applicant had filed the written
representation with Dadar Railway Police Station on the letter
head of Bahujan Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union,
in the capacity of its General Secretary, falsely claiming that A1
was innocent and the Report of the informant was false. Thus, the
applicant tried to protect A1 from the legal action in this case.
Additionally, the applicant had assured the A1 and his wife-A4,
that he would lead a march through their union, claiming that A1
was innocent. It is alleged that, the applicant received certain
amount from A1, to protect him and his wife-A4, from the legal
action. Therefore, the Applicant was arrested, whereafter, he was
granted bail. However, on invocation of the MCOC offence, the
applicant came to be re-arrested by the police. His bail application
came to be rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this application.

4. Ms. Ganediwala, learned Counsel for the applicant
submitted that the role played by the applicant and the A2 –
Sameer Lalzare was similar. A2 has three criminal antecedents of
bodily offence as submitted by learned SPP, Mr. Mule. However,
the A2 is released on bail by this Court. Said Order is not assailed
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for cancellation. The applicant
is behind bars for last more than 5 years. He has no criminal

Page 2 of 5
MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC

antecedents. Therefore, she urged to grant the bail on the principle
of parity.

5. Opposing these submissions, Mr. Mule, the learned SPP has
submitted that the applicant had tried to protect A1 and his wife
A4 from the legal action and for that purpose he had filed the false
representation with the police claiming A1’s innocence.
Additionally, the applicant received certain money from A1, to
protect the couple from the legal action. Therefore, bail be refused.

6. I have considered these submissions. It is a matter of record
that, initially, the applicant was released on bail and, on
invocation of the MCOC offence, he was re-arrested. Since then
the applicant is in jail. Mr. Mule, the learned SPP submitted that
after filing of the charge-sheet, all the accused persons tried to
protract the trial and therefore, the trial could not be advanced.
However, meanwhile, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
The contention that the accused were delaying the trial is accepted
by this Court while rejecting the Bail Application No.3809 of 2025
filed by A7 - Vikram Vijay Bhutekar. However, said Accused –
Vikram Bhutekar has been released on bail by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as he was in custody for a period of about five
years and, out of 50 witnesses, only five were examined. Said A7
has 10 criminal antecedents and the present applicant has none.
Insofar as the period of incarceration is concerned, the applicant
has suffered more period in jail than said A7.

7. In the wake of above and having regard to the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, the applicant deserves to be
released on bail on the principle of parity. Hence, following
Order:-

Page 3 of 5
MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC

(i) Applicant – Sanjay Kashiram Mohite shall be released
on bail with MCOC Special Case No.1322 of 2021, pending
on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special
Judge under MCOC Act Greater Mumbai arising out of an
FIR bearing Crime No.286 of 2021 registered with Dadar
Railway Police Station, Mumbai Railway on his furnishing
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Dadar
Railway Police Station, Mumbai Railway on the 1 st day of
each calendar month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., till
the conclusion of the trial.

(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing
against him.

(v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to the
Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
for which he has been arraigned in this case.

Page 4 of 5
MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC

(vii) In case of breach of any of the conditions, the
Respondent-State will be at liberty to approach the trial
Court for cancellation of bail.

(viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
Application and should not influence the out come of the
trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.

8. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

Page 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…