Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

ROHAN PANDIT MHALASKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

Since the CCTV footage does not show the applicant committing a specific assault with a dangerous weapon, bail is to be granted on parity with the other co‑accused.

Summary

The applicant, Rohan Pandit Mhalaskar, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act. The primary evidence was CCTV footage showing his presence at the scene but not any specific assault with a weapon. The prosecution argued he carried and displayed the weapons, while the defence highlighted the lack of a direct assault by him. The court noted that other co‑accused had been granted bail and, given the absence of a specific violent act by the applicant, applied the parity principle. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions, without commenting on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

  • Whether the CCTV footage establishing the applicant's presence but not a specific assault justifies denial of bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.
  • Whether the principle of parity with co‑accused who were granted bail requires the applicant’s bail to be granted.
  • Whether the nature of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act warrants refusal of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • parity principle
  • CCTV evidence
  • assault with weapon
  • BNSS 2023
  • B.N. Sanhita 2023
  • Arms Act
  • Maharashtra Police Act

Judgment

                                                             52.BA.2308.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2308 OF 2026

       Rohan Pandit Mhalaskar                           .. Applicant
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra                             .. Respondent

                                    WITH
                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2449 OF 2026
                                     IN
                      BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2308 OF 2026

       Jayashree Dyaneshwar Barge                          Intervenor /
                                                        .. Orig. Complainant
       IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
       Rohan Pandit Mhalaskar                              Applicant /
                                                        .. Orig. Accused
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra                             .. Respondent

                                  ....................
        Mr. Tanmay T. Kate a/w. Ashraf Kazi and Mr. Navinya Gadiya,
         Advocates i/by Vipul Dushing for Applicant.
        Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
        Mr. Ishan Paradkar and Ms. Nawaz Dordi, Advocates for Intervenor.
        PSI - Mr. Rupesh Khadse, MIDC Bhosari Police Station Pimpri
         Chinchwad present.
                                   ......…........…

                                  CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                  DATE        : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.       Heard Mr. Kate, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.

       Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Paradkar,

       learned Advocate for Intervenor.




                                                                         1 of 6
                                                         52.BA.2308.2026.doc


2.        This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS, 2023”) seeking

regular Bail in connection with C.R. No.263 of 2025 registered with

Bhosri MIDC Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections

103, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; under Section 4(25) of the Arms Act and

Sections 37(1)(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.


3.        Present Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the present

crime. The principal piece of material evidence which prima facie

needs to be considered is the CCTV footage of the entire incident

which has been captured by the prosecution and depicted vividly as

appearing on page 173 and 174. Both the learned Advocates have

referred to the same, without shying away from it. The other 2 accused

persons have been granted bail. Accused Nos.3 and 5 have been

enlarged on bail. Their role as can be seen is jointly and severally with

the other accused persons, save and except the fact that they were not

seen assaulting with the weapons. The weapons in the present case are

wooden sticks and a sickle (dks;rk).


4.        Role attributed to the present Applicant which is argued by

the learned Advocate for the Informant is that he was seen carrying the

weapons, flashing the weapons and arguing with the victims. When a

pointed question is put forth to both the learned Advocates with regard


                                                                     2 of 6
                                                         52.BA.2308.2026.doc


to any specific act of assault by the weapon, in their fair-mindedness,

they would say that though it is not so shown or seen from the CCTV

footage but a generic statement appears in the report which is not

specific though.   They would submit that the fact that the present

Applicant was egging the other accused persons is seen from the CCTV

footage.


5.         The learned Advocate for the Informant would submit that

the deceased person has been assaulted with sharp weapons and the

motive for the set crime appears to be a financial dispute between the

parties. The investigation is completed. Applicant has been arrested on

16.05.2025 and is in incarceration for the past more than 1 year 4

months. Applicant has no antecedents either.


6.         Prima facie, the CCTV footage does show the presence of the

Applicant at the incident site, but it does not show any specific act of

assault by the dangerous weapon by the Applicant. Though learned

Advocate for the First Informant / Complainant would argue that the

role attributed to the Applicant would not entitle him to be enlarged

on bail on parity because he has been specifically assigned to have

brought the weapons and there has been a recovery of weapons from

him.


7.         However, considering the fact that there is no specific assault

made by Applicant on any of the victims or the victim concerned, I am


                                                                     3 of 6
                                                        52.BA.2308.2026.doc


inclined to allow the present Application for bail on parity with the

other co-accused persons who have been granted bail.


8.       Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and

findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the

following terms and conditions:-


         (i)   Applicant – Rohan Pandit Mhalaskar is directed to be

               immediately released from prison in connection with

               CR. No.263 of 2025;


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

               furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty

               Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like

               amount;


         (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

               Bhosari MIDC Police Station, once every month, on the

               first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00

               p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall

               attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;


         (iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial

               and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,

               unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek

               unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall



                                                                     4 of 6
                                                        52.BA.2308.2026.doc


              entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;


         (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 residential address and mobile telephone

              number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating

              Officer of any change in his residential address or

              mobile telephone number, as and when such change

              occurs;


         (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid

              conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to

              the Applicant; and


         (ix) Applicant is directed not to enter the jurisdiction of

              Bhosari MIDC Police Station and Khed Police Station,

              Pune, save and except to register his presence and to

              attend the Trial Court dates, until the trial is completed.


9.       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


                                                                    5 of 6
                                                                                          52.BA.2308.2026.doc


                                   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.


                                   10.       Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.


                                   11.       In view of disposal of Bail Application, pending Interim

                                   Application No.2449 of 2026 is accordingly disposed.




                                                                             [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

        Ajay
             Digitally signed by
AJAY         AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK      UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE   Date: 2026.09.17
             18:21:55 +0530




                                                                                                      6 of 6


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.