Bombay High Court

AADITY RAMDAS PINGALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 9 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of a specific role attributed to the applicant and given the bail already granted to co‑accused, the applicant is entitled to bail in all three cases.

Summary

The applicant, Aditya Ramdas Pingale, sought bail in three separate criminal matters arising from FIRs registered at different police stations, involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the Maharashtra Police Act. The prosecution alleged his participation in threats, assault and the forcible taking of tempo keys, but the FIRs did not specifically name him or attribute a distinct role, and other co‑accused had already been released on bail. The applicant’s counsel highlighted his medical conditions (epilepsy, schizophrenia, insomnia) and argued for parity with the other accused. The court examined the lack of specific incriminating statements against the applicant, the precedent of bail granted to co‑accused, and the applicant’s health factors, concluding that there was no substantive ground to deny bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail in all three applications subject to standard conditions. The order was limited to bail and did not address the merits of the underlying charges.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not specifically named or attributed a distinct role in the FIRs
Whether parity with co‑accused already released on bail warrants granting bail to the applicant
Whether the applicant’s medical conditions affect the bail decision
Whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 4
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 189(2), 189(2)(4), 189(4), 190, 191(2)(3), 191(3), 192, 310(2), 310(5), 311, 324(2), 324(4), 333, 3(5), 351(3), 352
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135

Subjects

bail
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Maharashtra Police Act
Arms Act
parity
medical condition
co‑accused
FIR
role attribution

Judgment

34.BA.2121.2026+.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2121 OF 2026

Aadity Ramdas Pingale .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2632 OF 2026

Aditya Ramdas Pingale .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2692 OF 2026

Aditya Ramdas Pingale .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
 Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe a/w. Mr. Abhijeet F. Khade, Advocates for
Applicant.
 Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent – State.
 Mr. Sachin Pawar, Advocate for Complainant.
 PSI – Yogesh Salunkhe, Nashik City Police, Ambad Police Station in
Bail Application No.2121 of 2026.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Dighe, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Gotad,

learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Pawar, learned Advocate

for Complainant.

2. Bail Application No.2121 of 2026 is filed under Section 483

1 of 7
34.BA.2121.2026+.doc

of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in

connection with C.R. No.78 of 2026 registered with Ambad Police

Station for offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 333, 189(2),

189(4), 192, 191(3), 190, 324(4), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act,

1951.

3. Bail Application No.2632 of 2026 is filed under Section 483

of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in

connection with C.R. No.33 of 2026 registered with Mhasarul Police

Station, Nashik City for offences punishable under Sections 310(2),

310(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4

and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959

4. Bail Application No.2692 of 2026 is filed under Section 483

of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in

connection with C.R. No.28 of 2026 registered with Gangapur Police

Station, Nashik City, Nashik for offences punishable under Sections

109(1), 311, 189(2)(4), 190, 191(2)(3), 324(2) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and

Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

5. This is a group of three Bail Applications which were heard

yesterday and which were ‘part-heard’ and kept today for further

hearing. Yesterday on 08.09.2026, after hearing Mr. Dighe and the

2 of 7
34.BA.2121.2026+.doc

learned prosecutor qua Bail Application Nos.2121 of 2026 and 2632 of

2026, the following order came to be passed:-

“1. Heard Mr. Dighe, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.
Gotad, learned APP for Respondent – State in Bail Application
No.2121 of 2026 and Mr. Palkar, learned APP for Respondent - State
in Bail Application No.2632 of 2026.
2. These is a group of three Applications seeking bail. One of
the Application is not listed today bearing No.2692 of 2026.
3. I have heard the two Bail Application Nos.2121 of 2026
and 2632 of 2026 which are listed at serial Nos.28 and 29 today fully.
In so far as the first Bail Application No.2121 of 2026 at serial No.28
is concerned, First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) is lodged by
the father of the victim and implication and complicity of the
Applicant as an accused person having participated in the incident
and crime in question is on the basis of a witness statement given by
the son of the victim who was present when the incident occurred.
The incident is of threat and intimidation by a gang of persons
including the Applicant.
4. Mr. Dighe persuades me to consider the fact that the
Applicants who have been named subsequently have all been released
on bail on the ground that they have not been named in the FIR and
their presence at the incident spot is disputed. He persuades me to
consider parity for the Applicant also on similar grounds. The bail
orders of the other Accused persons are all placed before the Court. I
have perused the same.
5. Though the charge is of attempt to murder, the case of the
prosecution is that some of the Accused persons threatened the victim
with a scythe (d®;rk). However, it is seen from the record that the
specific role of the Accused persons who threatened with the weapon
is not clear rather prosecution has relied on any witness statements
recorded which attribute no specific role to any of the Accused
persons with the weapon in question.
6. That apart, Mr. Dighe has also placed on record
substantial material to show that Applicant is suffering from epilepsy,
schizophrenia and insomnia and has therefore has been under
medication with regard to the same even before his arrest and while
in jail. The necessary doctor certificate is also appended to the
praecipe which was mentioned before me for today’s listing.
7. Hence, in so far as FIR No.78 of 2026 dated 28.01.2026
and R.C.C. Case No.911 of 2026 is concerned, there is no role
attributed to the Applicant by the Complainant and he is not named
and therein. Hence I am prima facie in agreement with the
submissions made by Mr. Dighe for grant of bail to the Applicant in
this case.
8. Second Bail Application No.2632 of 2026 is listed at serial

3 of 7
34.BA.2121.2026+.doc

number 29. In this case, the Informant is the friend of the Applicant-
Accused, and charge is that Accused persons alongwith accomplices
and other persons, forcibly took the keys of the tempo and drove
away with the tempo at 7:45 p.m. on the same day. Mr. Dighe would
submit that the tempo has since been returned to the Complainant
and the Complainant also has no complaint any further and is infact
going to remain present in Court for that matter.
9. In so far as this FIR No.33 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026 is
concerned, the charge is directly against the Applicant of having
snatched the tempo keys and he having taken it forcibly from the
tempo driver, who was his friend and known to the Applicant. In so
far as the third Bail Application is concerned, on the same day many
Accused persons in the present crime had driven the tempo and halted
at a shop 10 kms away from the incident site to buy cigarettes and
when the shop owner had a scuffle with them, it is pointed out by Ms.
Gotad that the shopkeeper was injured grievously. Since that matter is
not on board today, it can be considered tomorrow alongwith the
other two matters namely Bail Application Nos.2121 of 2026 and
2632 of 2026 which are listed at serial Nos.28 and 29 for grant of bail
today.
10. The learned APP shall find out the specific role attributed
to the Applicant in the three cases for consideration of the bail
Applications.
11. List all three Bail Applications namely Bail Application
Nos.2121 of 2026; 2632 of 2026 and 2692 of 2026 on 09th
September 2026.”

6. Paragraph Nos.1 to 7 deal with First Information Report (for

short ‘FIR’) No.78 of 2026, whereas paragraph No.8 onwards deal with

FIR No.33 of 2026 qua both these aforesaid matters. It is prima facie

seen that even though the Applicant was present alongwith the group

of youngsters who had come in the Mahindra pickup tempo and was

part of the incident, the prosecution has not been able to specifically

pin point or attribute any specific role to the Applicant before me on

the basis of the statements that have been recorded.

7. In the first FIR No.78 of 2026, it is prima facie seen that the

Applicant was not named in the FIR. Five out of the eight co-accused

4 of 7
34.BA.2121.2026+.doc

persons have already been released on bail. Mr. Dighe drew my

attention to the panchnama in the third Bail Application No.2692 of

2026. This concerns the assault made on the shopkeeper. The Nivedan

panchnama at page No.179 which is prepared on the basis of the

statements recorded by the prosecution, prima facie gives the details of

the entire incident.

8. It is seen that in so far as present Applicant is concerned, he

was sitting behind alongwith the other co-accused in the Mahindra

pickup truck. The Nivedan panchnama when read at page No.180

prima facie shows the principal involvement of Accused No.1 - Kundan

Pardeshi and Accused No.8-Sumedh Gavali having assaulted the

shopkeeper – Complainant with weapons.

9. In that view of the matter, the Applicant before me deserves

parity as his role is no better than the role of the other co-accused

persons who have already been enlarged on bail. In view of my

aforesaid observations and the yesterday’s order dated 08.09.2026, the

Applicant in this Bail Application is also is enlarged on bail.

10. It is also noted that the pickup tempo owner is duly

represented by an Advocate today and he submits that the Accused

persons and the tempo driver were all friends and known to each other

but because the tempo keys were snatched and taken forcibly by the

some of the Accused persons, the tempo owner had no option but to

5 of 7
34.BA.2121.2026+.doc

11. Needless to state that complicity of the Accused persons /

Applicants before me will be proven by the prosecution during trial in

accordance with law.

12. In view of the above, all 3 Bail Applications stand allowed

and Applicants are granted bail on the following terms and conditions:-

(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from

prison in connection with Crime Nos. 78 of 2026, 33 of

2026 and 28 of 2026;

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

furnishing common P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs.

Twenty Five Thousand only) each with one or two

surety / sureties of the like amount in all three

Applications;

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the

respective Police Stations where the crime is registered

once every month on the first Monday of the month

between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.; 12:00 Noon to 01:00

p.m. and 02:00 p.m. to 03:00 p.m. until the

commencement of trial;

(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and

attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically

6 of 7
34.BA.2121.2026+.doc

exempted and will not take any unnecessary

adjournments, and if they do so it will entitle the

prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;

(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or

tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed

of his current address and mobile contact number and /

or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from

time to time, as applicable; and

(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation

of bail granted to the Applicant.

13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are

limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any

observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on

the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being

uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made

hereinabove in this order.

14. Bail Application Nos.2121 of 2026; 2632 of 2026 and 2692

of 2026 are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
7 of 7
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.10
15:02:41 +0530

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…