Bombay High Court
DHANESH MARUTI THORATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co‑accused who have been released.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dhanesh Maruti Thorat in a special MCOC case involving charges of murder, kidnapping, conspiracy, and violations of the Arms Act and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. The prosecution alleged that Thorat harboured the gang members responsible for abducting and killing Sachin Garje and assisted in procuring firearms. Thorat's counsel argued that he was not present at the crime scene and that his role was identical to that of his wife Jagruti and mother‑in‑law, both of whom had already been granted bail, invoking the principle of parity. The State contended that Thorat’s alleged involvement in procuring weapons and his participation in three other MCOC cases warranted denial of bail. After examining the record, the Court found no material distinction between Thorat and the co‑accused who were on bail and therefore granted bail on the ground of parity, subject to standard conditions. The bail order required a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with sureties and regular police attendance.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged under serious offences including murder and organised crime provisions.
- Whether the principle of parity applies when co‑accused (wife and mother‑in‑law) have been granted bail.
- Whether alleged involvement in procurement of firearms and other pending MCOC cases precludes bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3
- Bombay Police Act — s. 135, 37(1)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 201, 212, 302, 34, 364
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4)
Subjects
- bail
- parity
- murder
- organised crime
- MCOC Act
- arms procurement
- harbouring
- criminal procedure
Judgment
Digitally
signed by H.C.SHIV 2.BA1658.26.DOC
HEMANT
HEMANT CHANDERSEN
CHANDERSEN SHIV
SHIV Date:
2026.08.19
11:39:56
+0300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1658 OF 2026
Dhanesh Maruti Thorat …. Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Prashant Pandey with Dinesh Jadhwani, M.Ridhima and
Neha Balani i/b W3Legal LLP for the Applicant.
Mr. Mahesh Mule, Spl.P.P. with Ankit Takle, Sakshi Tambat for
Respondent
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED: 17th AUGUST 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Present Application seeks release of the Applicant on bail in
Special Case MCOC No.293/2020, pending before the Sessions
Court at Thane, which is arising out of C.R. No.490 of 2019
registered with Nerul police station, Navi Mumbai for the offence
punishable under Sections 302, 364, 120-B, 201, 212 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and under Sections 3, 25
and 27 of the Arms Act, read with 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police
Act and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act”).
3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that, on 14.09.2019,
at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased, Sachin Garje, was abducted in a
Skoda car bearing registration No. MH-14-FM-5099 by co-accused
Pritam Kohli and his associate. Thereafter the deceased was not
traceable. Therefore, his father lodged a Report. Initially, said
Page 1 of 4
H.C.SHIV 2.BA1658.26.DOC
Report was registered under Section 364 and Section 34 of the
IPC. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded.
It revealed that after the abduction, the deceased was taken to a
hill in the Navi Mumbai area, where, he was murdered by co-
accused persons. Thereafter, his body was thrown into a water
reservoir. The dead body was subsequently retrieved and buried in
marshy land. However, again the dead body was exhumed, burnt
and, the remains were crushed and thrown into a river. Upon
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed,
followed by a supplementary charge-sheet.
4. It is alleged that, after the commission of the murder by the
gang leader and the co-accused, the Applicant, along with his wife
Jagruti, harboured them. Considering these allegations, the trial
Court declined to release the Applicant on bail. Hence, he is before
this Court.
5. Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant,
submitted that, as per the prosecution case, the Applicant was not
present at the time and spot, from where the deceased was
abducted and subsequently murdered. The role attributed to the
Applicant is similar to the role of his wife Jagruti and his mother-
in-law, i.e., harbouring the co-accused persons. Applicant’s wife
Jagruti and mother-in-law both have already been enlarged on
bail. Therefore, by applying the principle of parity, the Applicant is
also entitled to be released on bail.
6. Mr.Mule, learned Spl.P.P. submitted that the Applicant has
aided the gang leader and his associates for procuring the firearms
and live cartridges, which were used while committing the murder
of deceased. The Applicant is involved in other three cases under
the provisions of MCOC Act. Therefore, the Applicant is not
entitled for bail.
Page 2 of 4
H.C.SHIV 2.BA1658.26.DOC
7. I have considered these submissions and perused the
material placed on record. It is borne out from the record that the
co-accused, Jagruti, is the wife of the Applicant and the sister of
the alleged gang leader, Vikrant Deshmukh. Mr. Pandey pointed
out the affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court opposing
the Bail Application of the said Jagruti, therein, it was alleged that
she had aided in procurement of the firearms and had provided
her Skoda car for the abduction of the deceased. It was further
alleged that, after the commission of the murder, the gang leader
and his associates had taken shelter at the residence of Jagruti and
that she had thereby harboured them. This submission is not
disputed by Mr. Mule.
8. Thus, it is not in dispute that the role attributed to the
present Applicant is substantially similar to the role of his wife
Jagruti and, his mother-in-law. The Applicant, his wife Jagruti
and, his mother-in-law are co-accused in three other cases
registered under the provisions of the MCOC Act. However, his
wife Jagruti and the mother-in-law have been granted bail in the
said cases.
9. In the wake of above, the Applicant is entitled to be released
on bail on the ground of parity. Hence, following Order :-
(i) The Applicant – Dhanesh Maruti Thorat be released
on bail in aforesaid FIR registered with Nerul police station,
Navi Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall mark his attendance at Nerul
police station, Navi Mumbai on 1st and 16th day of each
calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till
conclusion of the trial.
Page 3 of 4
H.C.SHIV 2.BA1658.26.DOC
(iii) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court.
(iv) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witnesses 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
Investigating 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.
(vii) 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.
10. At this stage, as requested by Mr.Pandey, learned Counsel,
the Applicant is granted six weeks time to furnish the surety. Till
then, the Applicant be released on bail on his executing a P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and depositing a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of furnishing the surety. On furnishing such
surety/ies, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be returned to the
Applicant.
11. Bail Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…