Bombay High Court
AAKASH RAJ PUROHITversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHYAM C CHANDAK
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant with stringent conditions, notwithstanding the trial court’s earlier refusal.
Summary
The applicant, Mr. Aakash Raj Purohit, sought bail in a criminal case (Sessions Case No.256 of 2021) involving multiple offences under the IPC, Maharashtra Police Act, Epidemic Diseases Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Although he had earlier been granted anticipatory bail, a non‑bailable warrant was issued when he arrived 15 minutes late to court, leading to cancellation of his bail and his custody. The applicant contended that he had not misused anticipatory bail and was willing to cooperate, while the trial court had refused bail on the basis of his alleged non‑cooperation. The High Court, after hearing counsel, held that bail should be granted but imposed stringent conditions, including a personal bond of Rs.50,000, monthly police station attendance, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The order also clarified that the bail grant does not constitute any opinion on the applicant’s guilt. The bail application was therefore disposed of in the applicant’s favour subject to the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant’s anticipatory bail can be cancelled and a non‑bailable warrant issued for a minor delay in court attendance.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the trial court’s refusal, considering his willingness to cooperate and deposit the forfeited bail bond.
Legislation cited
- Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 149, 188, 269, 332, 341, 353, 427, 504
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- non‑bailable warrant
- criminal procedure
- conditions of bail
- court attendance
- personal bond
- Indian Penal Code
- Maharashtra Police Act
Judgment
WAKLE
MANOJ MANOJ 503-BA-3208-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.08.06
19:35:01 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3208 OF 2026
Mr. Aakash Raj Purohit …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi a/w Adv. Madan Gupta, Adv. Gaurang
Jhaveri, Adv. K. Mishra, Adv. Harsh Nishar & Adv. Priti Jain, for
the Applicant.
Mr. Amit Munde, Add.PP a/w Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the
Respondent-State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 6th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with
Sessions Case No.256 of 2021, pending before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater
Bombay, arising out of an FIR bearing CR No.113 of 2020
registered with Colaba Police Station, for the offence punishable
under Sections 353, 332, 341, 143, 147, 149, 188, 269, 427 and 504
of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 37/135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act 1951, Sections 3 and 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act,
1897 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984.
3. Mr.Mundargi, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits
that the Applicant was granted Anticipatory Bail in the case. The
Applicant used to regularly attend in the said case. On 5th August,
2026, just because the Applicant got 15 minutes late in attending
the Court, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against him. Later,
Page 1 of 4
MANOJ 503-BA-3208-2026.DOC
upon declining Applicant’s prayer for cancellation of the NBW, his
bail was cancelled, he was taken into custody and even his prayer
to release on bail was rejected by the trial Court. In the past, the
matter before the trial Court was delayed due to non-cooperation
from the Applicant. In short, the Applicant never misused the
Anticipatory Bail in any manner. He submits that the Applicant
undertakes to attend the trial Court regularly in the future and he
will deposit the forfeited bail bond amount.
4. However, the aforesaid submissions are inconsistent with
the observations of the trial Court recorded in the Order thereby
refusing to release the Applicant on bail after taking him into
custody.
5. Be that as it may. It is a fact that the trial is part heard. Mr.
Mundargi submit that the Applicant undertakes to attend the trial
Court on each date and will co-operate for expeditious disposal of
the case. In view thereof, the Application deserves to be allowed
but with stringent conditions. Hence, following Order:-
(i) Applicant – Mr. Aakash Raj Purohit shall be released
on bail in connection with in connection with Sessions Case
No.256 of 2021, pending before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater
Bombay, arising out of an FIR bearing CR No.113 of 2020
registered with Colaba Police Station, Mumbai, on his
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall mark his attendance at Colaba
Police Station, Mumbai, on the 1st day of each calendar
month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., till the conclusion
of the trial.
Page 2 of 4
MANOJ 503-BA-3208-2026.DOC
(iii) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(iv) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(v) On being released from jail, the Applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to the
Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vi) Applicant shall deposit the forfeited bail bond
amount, which Mr. Mundargi stating to be Rs.15,000/-.
However, if the said amount is higher that Rs.15,000/-,
then the Applicant shall deposit the higher amount.
(vii) The Applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
for which he has been arraigned in this case.
(viii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the
observations made hereinabove are confined for the
purpose of determination to the entitlement for bail and
they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on
the guilt or otherwise of the Applicant and the trial Court
shall not be influenced by any of the observations made
hereinabove.
(viii) Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
6. At this stage, as requested by the learned Counsel
Mr.Mundargi, the Applicant is granted four weeks time to furnish
surety. Till then, the Applicant be released on bail on his executing
Page 3 of 4
MANOJ 503-BA-3208-2026.DOC
a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and depositing a sum of
Rs.50,000/- in lieu of furnishing the surety bond. On furnishing
the surety/ies within the said period, the amount of Rs.50,000/-
deposited by the Applicant shall be returned.
7. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…