Bombay High Court
ROSHAN HARI SAVADATKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that bail must be granted to the applicant subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Roshan Hari Savadatkar, an undertrial accused, applied for bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with a case involving serious offences under the IPC, the Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act and MCOCA. He has been in custody since 9 August 2020, amounting to more than six years, while the prosecution has not examined any of the 90 witnesses listed. The court noted that eight of the eleven co‑accused had already been released on bail and that a Supreme Court order dated 14 November 2025 in the Datta Patil case directed examination of key witnesses, which the prosecution had failed to do. Relying on the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and the principle of parity, the court found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a set of conditions, including a personal bond of Rs 15,000 and reporting requirements. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and did not address the merits of the underlying criminal charges.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an undertrial accused charged with serious offences under the IPC, Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act and MCOCA under BNSS Sec 483 and CrPC Sec 439.
- Whether the applicant's prolonged incarceration without witness examination violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, thereby warranting bail.
- Whether the principle of parity and the prosecution's failure to examine any of the 90 witnesses justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 4 read with 25
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 352
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) — s. 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(4)
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 37(1) read with 135 & 142
Subjects
- bail
- speedy trial
- undertrial detention
- parity
- BNSS
- CrPC
- MCOCA
- IPC offences
- right to liberty
Judgment
6. BA 3677-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3677 OF 2026
Roshan Hari Savadatkar .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
ANAND Mr. Vipul Dushing a/w. Mr. Tanmay Kate i/b. Mr. Ajinkya Gaikwad,
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME Advocates, for the Applicant
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
Mr. Y. M. Nakhawa, APP, for the Respondent – State
SUDAME
Date: 2026.10.01
16:24:56 +0530
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 30.09.2026
P. C.
1. Heard Mr. Dushing, learned Counsel for the Applicant and
Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for the Respondent – State.
2. This Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)/ under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CRPC”) in
connection with C.R.No. 368 of 2020 registered with Bhosari Police
Station, Pune for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 352,
143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short “IPC”), under Section 4 read with 25 of the Arms Act, 1959,
under Section 37(1) r/w. 135 & 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act and
under Sections 3(1)(i)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control
Anand 1 of 4
6. BA 3677-2026.doc
Organised Crime Act (for short “MCOCA”).
3. The Applicant before me is indicted under the Special Act as also
under the provisions of the IPC. The only reason which impels me to
consider the case of the Applicant for grant of bail is his long
incarceration as an undertrial pending trial. He has been arrested on
09.08.2020 and has completed more than six years and one month in
prison. Charge has been framed, however, out of the 90 cited
witnesses, prosecution has not been able to examine even a single
witness until today. Out of the total 11 Accused persons, 8 Accused
persons have already been enlarged on bail. One order dated
14.11.2025 passed by the Supreme Court is in the case of Accused No.
11 – Datta Patil which prima facie gives directions for examination of
the key witnesses but even that has not been done by the prosecution.
4. Considering the aforesaid, the ground of parity is prima facie
applicable to Applicant’s case as also the fact that long incarceration
and right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
is an indefeasible right in such a situation which entails the Applicant
to maintain the present Bail Application. I am therefore inclined to
allow the Bail Application.
5. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and finding,
Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms
Anand 2 of 4
6. BA 3677-2026.doc
and conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Roshan Hari Savadatkar is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
CR. No. 368 of 2020;
(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
Bhosari 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 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
Anand 3 of 4
6. BA 3677-2026.doc
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; and
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicant.
6. 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.
7. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)
Anand 4 of 4
Checking your session…