Bombay High Court

RADHESHAM PANJABRAO BHALERAOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SACHIN S DESHMUKH

Holding

The Court allowed the bail applications of Nitin Bapurao Mohite and Radhesham Panjabrao Bhalerao.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench considered bail applications filed by Nitin Bapurao Mohite and Radhesham Panjabrao Bhalerao, accused in a kidnapping‑ransom case registered as Crime No.597 of 2024. The prosecution alleged that the accused were part of a gang that abducted an elderly man and demanded a Rs 1 crore ransom, charging them under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959. The defence highlighted that Nitin’s name does not appear in the FIR and that his implication rests solely on a co‑accused’s confession, with no other material evidence, and that the accused have been in pre‑trial detention for over a year while the trial has not commenced. The Court noted the principle of parity, the release of other co‑accused, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the Court granted bail to both applicants subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting bail to accused who have been in custody for over a year without trial.
Whether the lack of direct evidence against Nitin, who is not named in the FIR, warrants bail.
The applicability of the parity principle after other co‑accused have been released.
The impact of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 on the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 3
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 137(2), 140(2), 310(2), 351(2)(3), 352, 61(2)

Subjects

bail
speedy trial
right to liberty
parity principle
kidnapping
ransom
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Arms Act
Article 21
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:514
1 930-BA-2021-25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2021 OF 2025

NITIN BAPURAO MOHITE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Amol G. Kale
APP for Respondents : Mr. C. V. Badhane
…
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2041 OF 2025

RADHESHAM PANJABRAO BHALERAO
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Satej S. Jadhav
APP for Respondents : Mr. C. V. Badhane
...

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 08-01-2026
PER COURT:-

1. The applicants seek regular bail in connection with Crime

No.597 of 2024, dated 04.10.2024, registered with Akhada Balapur

Police Station, Akhada Balapur, Taluka Kalamnuri, District Hingoli,

for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(2), 310(2),

109, 127(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), 61(2), 126(2) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 25 the Arms Act, 1959. In

the said crime, the applicants i.e. Accused no. 7 namely Nitin and

Accused no. 2 Radhesham, were arrested on 10.10.2024 and

05.10.2024, respectively. After completion of the investigation, the

chargesheet has been filed.
2 930-BA-2021-25.odt

2. It is the prosecution's case that on 03.10.2024 at about 7.35

p.m., the informant received a call from Rahul Bondhare, a

puncture shop owner. Rahul informed him that his father's

motorcycle was found lying near the drain beside the service road

at Kandali Phata, suggesting an accident had occurred. The

informant rushed to the scene and found the motorcycle, but his

father was missing. Despite informing relatives and making

inquiries at nearby hospitals in Balapur, Nanded, and Waranga

Phata, the father could not be traced. Later that same day, at

about 9.18 p.m., the informant's mother received a WhatsApp

voice call from the father’s cell number. The caller allegedly stated

that four persons had forcibly taken the injured man in a black

Scorpio and assaulted him. Thereafter, the alleged abductors

contacted the informant’s brother via WhatsApp, confirming the

father was in their custody, demanding a ransom of Rs. 1 Crore,

and threatening to kill him if the payment was not made. It is

alleged that unknown persons abducted the informant's father and

demanded ransom, leading to the lodging of this report.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that accused

No. 7, Nitin, is not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR).

His name was introduced solely based on a confession made to the

police by Accused No. 2, Radhesham, which resulted in his

implication as an accused. Apart from the confession of the co-

accused, there is no other material evidence connecting the Nitin
3 930-BA-2021-25.odt

to the alleged crime. The other co-accused, including the main

accused, have already been granted bail by orders of this Court on

19.03.2025, 02.04.2025, 28.04.2025, and 09.05.2025. The

chargesheet cites 43 witnesses, but the trial has not yet

commenced. The applicants have been in custody for a prolonged

period, specifically for over a year since their arrest. Hence,

prayed to allow the bail application on the grounds of parity and

prolonged incarceration.

4. The learned APP opposed the application, submitting that

the offence is serious. It was contended that the Accused no. 7’s

involvement surfaced during the investigation and that he is part

of a gang that abducted an elderly man. The victim was detained

and confined in a farmhouse for a ransom demand of Rupees One

Crore. The prosecution contends that the applicant was in touch

with the main accused and thus facilitated the crime by arranging

the stay/confinement location for the abducted person whereas

the Accused no. 2 is named the FIR and played significant role in

the alleged crime. Hence, prayed that the application be rejected.

5. Having heard the respective counsel for the applicants and

the learned APP for the State and upon perusal of the material on

record, including the charge sheet indicates that the other co-

accused have already been released by this Court, on the principle

of parity. When confronted with the progress in trial, the learned

APP is not able to demonstrate the same.
4 930-BA-2021-25.odt

6. The right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the

Consitution of India is not eclipsed by the nature of offence. The

prolonged incarceration of under trial, wothout commnecment or

reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced as it has the

effect of converting pre trial detention into form of punsiment.

Thus, keeping in view the verdict of the Honourable Apex Court in

the Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of maharashtra and others,

MANU/SC/0609/2024, dated 03.07.2024, indefinite incarceration of

the applicants are not warranted. Therefore, the applications

warrant consideration.

7. Hence, the order:-

ORDER

(i) The bail applications are is allowed.

(ii) Applicants, Nitin Bapurao Mohite and Radhesham Panjabrao

Bhalerao, be released on bail, upon furnishing P.R. bond in

the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand) each, with one

or two local solvent sureties, in the like amount, in

connection with Crime No.597 of 2024 dated 24.12.2023

registered with Akhada Balapur Police Station, Akhada

Balapur, Taluka Kalamnuri, District Hingoli, for the offences

punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(2), 310(2), 109,

127(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), 61(2), 126(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 25 the

Arms Act, 1959, on the conditions that;
5 930-BA-2021-25.odt

(a) The applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution

witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence,

in any manner.

(b) The applicants shall attend the trial on each and every

date unless exempted by the trial Court and shall not

leave the area of jurisdiction of the concerned Police

Station till conclusion of the trial.

to the Investigating Officer and detailed address and

phone numbers of the two near relatives.

(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the

applicants, it is open for the Prosecution to move this

Court seeking cancellation of bail.

(iii) Needless to state that the observations rendered herein,

are to the extent of these applications and the trial Court

shall not be influenced by the same.

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE

rrd

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…