Bombay High Court
SUDHIR BHARAT BHORADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant on a Rs 30,000 bond with conditions, on the ground of parity with co‑accused who have already been released.
Summary
The High Court considered an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Sudhir Bharat Bhorade, accused No.3 in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 420, 406, 409 read with 34. The principal accused (Accused No.1) and co‑accused No.2 had already been released on bail, and the applicant’s counsel argued for parity in granting bail. The prosecution sought proof of the applicant’s bonafides, but the court accepted the applicant’s statement and the parity argument. Relying on the fact that the co‑accused with an identical role had been bailed, the court ordered the applicant’s release on a Rs 30,000 bond with sureties and imposed standard bail conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and did not address the merits of the underlying criminal charges.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to Accused No.3 under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in view of the bail already granted to co‑accused persons.
- Whether the principle of parity justifies granting bail to the applicant despite the seriousness of the offences under IPC Sections 420, 406, 409 r/w 34.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 409, 420
Subjects
- bail
- parity
- Section 483 BNSS
- IPC offences
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
47.BA.3078.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3078 OF 2026
Sudhir Bharat Bhorade .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Varun Thokal, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
PI – Mr. Asaram Bhole, EOW Pune City present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Thokal, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail. The
case of Applicant is for enlargement on bail in First Information Report
(FIR) bearing C. R. No.56 of 2025 dated 08.03.2025 registered with
Wagholi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420,
406 and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
‘IPC’).
3. Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.3 in the present crime.
Total 4 Accused persons are involved. The principal accused who is the
owner of the land and who received the maximum quantum of the
1 of 5
47.BA.3078.2026.doc
amounts on the said land having been marketed by Accused Nos.2 and
3 has already been released on bail without he making any deposit.
The learned Advocate appearing for Applicant would draw my
attention to the order of grant of bail to Accused No.2 who was the
partner of the present Applicant, copy of which is annexed at Exhibit –
‘I’ – page No.897 of the Application.
4. On 15.04.2026, this Court (Coram: Shivkumar Dige, J.)
enlarged Accused No.2 on bail. Though he would candidly submit that
the said order prima facie reads that the Applicant therein namely co-
accused No.2 had deposited the amount which was shown to have
been received by him by the prosecution, he would on instructions
from the father of the Applicant submit that he is not in a position to
make any deposit.
5. However, he would submit that in view of the principal
Accused No.1 having been enlarged on bail and the co-accused No.2
who was the partner of Applicant being enlarged on bail on parity, he
deserves to be enlarged on bail, especially on the basis of the Applicant
not having knowledge about the passing of the Supreme Court order in
the year 2016 and the subsequent embargo placed in the revenue
record of the subject lands in 2023 which has been ascertained by this
Court while releasing the principal accused on bail vide order dated
31.08.2026 in Bail Application No.1883 of 2026.
2 of 5
47.BA.3078.2026.doc
6. Mr. Karmakar, learned Prosecutor would in his usual fair-
mindedness draw my attention to paragraph No.3 of the order of grant
of bail to Accused No.2 dated 15.04.2026 and would submit that the
Applicant should be directed to show his bonafides in order to
consider the request made by the learned Advocate for Applicant on
parity.
7. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Karmakar.
However, in view of the candid statement made by the learned
Advocate on instructions received from the father of Applicant who is
present in court, I am inclined to accept the said statement.
Considering the fact that the principal accused has already been
enlarged on bail and also the co-accused No.2 who has an identical
role as that of the Applicant being a co-partner of the ‘Vision Valley
Project’ partnership firm which marketed the said land to prospective
purchasers/buyers, I am inclined to accept the submission on the
ground of parity and enlarge the Applicant on 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 – Sudhir Bharat Bhorade is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
CR. No.56 of 2025;
3 of 5
47.BA.3078.2026.doc
(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
Wagholi Police Station, Pune 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
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
4 of 5
47.BA.3078.2026.doc
Officer of any change in his residential address or
mobile telephone number, as and when such change
occurs; and
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicant.
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
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.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.16
20:08:04 +0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…