Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SIDDHARTH DYANDEV DABHADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Allowed

Holding

Bail is granted to the applicant subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Siddharth Dnyandeo Dabhade, who is charged with kidnapping, assault and murder offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant had been in custody for over two years and ten months pending trial, although he was not named in the FIR and was later identified through a test identification parade. The court noted that two co‑accused had already been released on bail and that the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention warranted relief. Relying on the principle of parity and the need to avoid excessive incarceration, the judge granted bail with a cash bond and a series of reporting and conduct conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and did not address the merits of the criminal charges.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with serious offences under the IPC after a prolonged pre‑trial detention.
  • Whether the identification of the accused after the FIR and the fact that co‑accused have been released on bail justify granting bail on the principle of parity.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • pre‑trial detention
  • parity
  • kidnapping
  • murder
  • IPC
  • CRPC
  • Section 439
  • identification parade

Judgment

                                                                                5. BA 3676-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3676 OF 2026

                      Siddharth Dnyandeo Dabhade                       .Applicant

                                  Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra                         .Respondent

                      Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w. Ms. Savvy Kolhekar & Ms. Juhi Kadu, Advocate,
         Digitally
         signed by
                      for the Applicant
         ANAND
ANAND    SUDHAKAR
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
                      Mr. Amit Mundhe, APP, for the Respondent – State
SUDAME   Date:
         2026.10.01
         16:24:23
                      Ms. Varsha Ramchandra Borse, PSI, Ambad Police Station, Nashik
         +0530
                      present

                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                         DATE     : 30.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Vagal, learned Counsel for the Applicant &

                      Mr. Mundhe, learned APP for the Respondent – State.

                      2.      This Application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of

                      Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CRPC”) in connection with

                      C.R.No. 731 of 2023 registered with Ambad Police Station, Nashik for

                      offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148

                      & 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

                      3.      The Applicant is a young offender. He along with the other Co-

                      accused persons had kidnapped the victim, who had an inherent

                      enmity with Accused No. 2 as per the prosecution case. He was beaten

                      Anand                            1 of 4
                                                         5. BA 3676-2026.doc

up by fist and blows. There are certain eye witnesses to the account but

that would be a matter of trial, since even according to the prosecution

case, the victim was intercepted and taken to an isolated location in a

mine, where he was beaten up by the Accused persons. The only reason

which impels me to consider the present case is the long incarceration

of the Applicant in jail for over two years and ten months pending trial.

Insofar as the role attributed to the Applicant is concerned, according

to the prosecution case, he participated and in inflicting fist blows and

kicks to the victim. Interestingly, it is seen that Applicant is not named

in the FIR nor in the Supplementary statement but on further

investigation, the Test Identification Parade which has been carried out

after almost two months later indicts him. In that view of the matter, I

am inclined to consider the case of the Applicant for grant of bail

especially, in view of two other co-accused persons namely Accused

Nos. 4 & 5 have already been released on bail almost one year earlier.

The Applicant is, therefore, released on bail on the ground of parity as

well as long incarceration pending trial.

4.      Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and finding,

Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms

and conditions:-




Anand                             2 of 4
                                                        5. BA 3676-2026.doc

        (i)   Applicant – Siddharth Dnyandeo Dabhade is directed to

              be immediately released from prison in connection with

              CR. No. 731 of 2023;


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

              P. R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only)

              with one or two sureties of the like amount;


        (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

              Ambad Police Station, Nashik, 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 co-operate 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;

Anand                            3 of 4
                                                           5. BA 3676-2026.doc

           (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; and


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

                 conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to

                 the Applicant.


5.      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.


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




                                                  (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                               4 of 4


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.