Bombay High Court
AMIT MADHUKAR BHOGLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The bail application is dismissed as the applicant’s serious criminal antecedents and risk of repeat offence preclude the application of parity in his favour.
Summary
The applicant, Amit Madhukar Bhogle, sought bail in a criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court. The Court examined his extensive criminal record, which includes multiple cases involving serious offences such as murder, attempt to murder, and violations of the Arms Act, many of which resulted in acquittals but several remain pending. The primary issue before the Court was whether bail could be granted on the ground of parity despite these antecedents. The Court held that the applicant’s history of serious bodily offences created a substantial risk of repeat offending, rendering the parity principle inapplicable. Consequently, the bail application was rejected. The judgment underscores the Court’s discretion to deny bail where the nature of past conduct indicates a likelihood of reoffending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in view of his extensive criminal antecedents.
- Whether the principle of parity can be invoked to justify bail for an accused with serious past offences.
- Whether the risk of the applicant committing similar offences warrants refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 3, 302, 307, 324, 34, 342, 379, 4, 452, 506
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act — s. 34, 506-II
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1)(a)
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- parity
- criminal antecedents
- repeat offence risk
- high court
- serious offences
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
Judgment
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN
SHIV
Digitally signed by H.C.SHIV 61.w2806.26.doc
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.09.02
11:37:12 +0300 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2806 OF 2026
Amit Madhukar Bhogle ...Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_____________
Mr. Priyal Sarda i/b Pratik Deshmukh for the Applicant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent.
Mr. Dharmapal Bansode, ACP, Crime Branch Unit-7 present.
_____________
CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. On earlier occasion, this Court declined to release the Applicant on
bail on merits and also for having criminal antecedents. The Applicant has
following antecedents :-
Sr. Case Details Provisions Status
No.
1. MCOC Spl. Case No.9/2015 u/s. 302, 307, 342, 452 r/w 34 Acquitted on
(Session Court, Greater & 506-II r/w 120B of IPC and 27.03.2026
Mumbai)C.R.No.314/2013 u/s 3/25, 3/27 of Arms Act and
in Bhandup PS u/s 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of
MCOC Act.
2. Session Case 75/2008 a/w u/s. 302, 307 r/w 34 of IPC & Acquitted on
406/2008 section 3 r/w 25 r/w 7, r/w 27 29.09.2017
(Session Court, of the Arms Act
Gr.Mumbai)
CR-99/2007 at DCB CID
3. Police Warrant u/s 379, 34 of IPC Acquitted on
PW/50/2008 (Addl.Chief 22.03.2019
Judicial Magistrate Court,
1/3
H.C.SHIV 61.w2806.26.doc
Vikhroli) CR-297/2007 in
Parksite PS
4. Police Warrant u/s 143, 147, 149, 324 of IPC & Acquitted on
PW/267/2007 JMFC U/s 37-1(a), 135 of Regional 04.03.2013
Mulund CR-85/2007 at and Town Planning Act.
Bhandup P.S.
5. Session Case 566/2009 u/s 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of Acquitted on
Session Court Gr.Bombay IPC 23.02.2010
CR-170/2009 at Bhandup PS
6. Police Case PS/705/2018 u/s 3, 4 of Prevention of For appearance
JMFC Mulund CR-56/2018 Damage to Public Property Act (Charge not
Bhandup PS. framed)
7. Session Case 399/2023 u/s 307, 143, 144, 148,149, Charged not
Addl. Session Court, Belapur 120B Framed
CR-350/2019 at Rabale PS
8. Police Case PW/238/2011 u/s. 3, 25 Arms Act For hearing
JMFC Mulund CR- (Charge not
402/2010 at Bhandup PS framed)
9. CR 222 of 2007 at u/s 307, 34 of IPC a/w Section
Ulhasnagar PS 3, 25(1) Arms Act
10. CR No.244 of 2007 at u/s. 307, 302, 34 of IPC a/w
Vikroli PS Section 3, 25 of Arms Act
11. CR No.08 of 2008 at u/s 3, 25 of Arms Act a/w 37(1),
Goregaon PS (a), 135 Regional and Town
Planning Act
12. CR No.13 of 2011 at u/s 3, 25 of Arms Act
Unit 7, Crime Branch,
Mumbai.
13. CR No.89 of 2021 at Unit 7, u/s 302, 326, 342, 143, 144,
Crime Branch, Mumbai 148, 149, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC
a/w Section 37(1)(a), 135 of
Maharashtra Police Act a/w
Sec. 3, 25 & 4, 25 of Arms Act
14. CR 280 of 2003 at u/s 302 of IPC
Bhandup PS
2/3
H.C.SHIV 61.w2806.26.doc
3. The aforesaid chart clearly indicates that the Applicant is majorly
involved in serious bodily offences. Therefore, if the Applicant is released
on bail on the ground of parity, there is a possibility of him committing
similar offence. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider this Application
favorably on the ground of parity. As a result, the Application is liable to be
rejected and is rejected, accordingly.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
3/3
Checking your session…