Bombay High Court

RAJNIKANT @ BUNTY MOHAN GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 7 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHYAM C CHANDAK

Holding

Bail was granted to the applicant subject to bond and conditions, applying the parity principle.

Summary

The applicant, Rajnikant @ Bunty Mohan Gaikwad, was charged under IPC sections 384, 341, 342 read with Section 34 and MCOCA sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) for allegedly extorting Rs.15,000 from an informant on 3 January 2023. The informant claimed the accused forced him to transfer money via PhonePe after threatening him. The applicant sought bail on the ground of parity, noting that a co‑accused in a similar extortion case (C.R. No.1799 of 2025) had been released on bail by the same court. The State conceded the parity ground, and the court examined the similarity of facts and the lack of involvement of one co‑accused, Anthony Raj, who was hospitalized. Relying on the parity principle, the court granted bail to the applicant subject to a Rs.30,000 bond, monthly police attendance, and compliance with trial court dates, stating the observations were prima facie and not binding during trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the offences and the MCOCA charges
Whether the principle of parity applies, allowing bail on the basis of a similar case where a co‑accused was released
Whether the presence of a co‑accused who was hospitalized affects the applicant's liability

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 341, 342, 384
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)

Subjects

bail
parity principle
extortion
MCOCA
common intention
criminal procedure

Judgment

PRASAD 76_BA_2166_2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2166 OF 2026

Digitally signed Rajnikant @ Bunty Mohan Gaikwad …Applicant
by PRASAD
PRASAD RAJENDRASING
RAJENDRASING RAJPUT
RAJPUT Date:
V/s.
2026.07.10
17:47:02 +0530
State of maharashtra …Respondent

Mr. Vinod Kashid a/w Sumit Bhoite, for the Applicant.
Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.

CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 7TH JULY, 2026
P.C. :-

. Mentioned out of turn.

2. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with
C.R. No.44 of 2023 registered with Kalwa Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 384, 341, 342 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3(1)
(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’).

3. Heard Mr. Kashid, learned counsel for the Applicant and
Mr. Dedhia, learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. On 20.01.2023, the Informant filed a Report with Kalwa
Police Station, therein, he has stated that on 03.01.2023, at about
05:45 to 09:12 hours, the Applicant and the co-accused namely
Anthony Raj and Gautam Wagh threatened to take action against
him, alleging that, he was carrying beef and then, they took the
Informant to Airoli Traffic Chowk in their car. Meanwhile, at

Page 1 of 3
PRASAD 76_BA_2166_2026.DOC

about 09:12 hours, they forced the Informant to send Rs.15,000/-
by PhonePe to Pravin Shetty as a ransom. Therefore, aforesaid
crime came to be registered against the Applicant and the co-
accused. Investigation culminated into filing of charge-sheet.

5. Mr. Kashid, learned counsel for the Applicant, pressed the
Application on the ground of parity. Mr. Dedhia, learned APP for
the Respondent – State, has conceded the ground of parity
because in Bail Application No.1799 of 2025 co-accused - Deepak
Pancham Kesari, has been released on bail by this Court,
observing that, on the same day, i.e., on 03.01.2023, at about
06:15 a.m., the Applicant and co-accused persons namely Deepak
Pancham Kesari and Anthony Raj had committed extortion in the
similar manner against the Informant. Mohd. Sameer Arib Shaikh,
vide C.R. No.8/2023, registered with Rabale Police Station.
However, the co-accused – Anthony Raj was not found to be
involved in either of the two crimes because at the relevant time he
was hospitalised on account of accidental injuries. This fact was
confirmed by the CCTV footage Anthony Raj had produced before
the police. It is only then, the Informant in this case changed his
stance in the suplimentary statement that Anthony Raj was not
present at the spot of the incident.

6. In the wake of the above, the is Applicant allowed. Hence,
following Order :-

(i) The Applicant – Rajnikant @ Bunty Mohan Gaikwad
be released on bail in C.R. No.44 of 2023 registered with
Kalwa Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 384, 341, 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC and
Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOCA, on his

Page 2 of 3
PRASAD 76_BA_2166_2026.DOC

executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one
surety in the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall attend concerned police station
between 11:00 a.m to 03:00 p.m. on 1 st Monday of each
month for a period of six months.

(iii) The Applicant shall attend every date of hearing
before the Trial Court, unless exempted by specific order of
the Trial Court.

(iv) The observations made in this order are prima facie
in nature and will not bind parties or Trial Court during
trial.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…