Bombay High Court
SACHIN YUVRAJ AHIREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
In the absence of direct evidence linking the applicant to the alleged conspiracy, there is no prima facie case to deny bail, and the applicant is therefore released on bail with conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed by Sachin Yuvraj Ahire, who was charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Police Act for allegedly abetting a violent assault on an informant. The prosecution relied on statements of co‑accused and mobile phone CDR/SDR records suggesting the applicant communicated with another accused about the victim’s presence. The defence argued that the co‑accused statements are inadmissible and that no direct evidence links the applicant to the conspiracy. The court found that, without a transcription of the alleged telephonic conversation, the CDR/SDR alone does not establish a prima facie case against the applicant. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions, noting the applicant’s criminal antecedents but emphasizing that the order does not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the applicant sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether statements of co‑accused recorded by police are admissible for bail considerations.
- Whether mobile phone CDR/SDR evidence alone can substantiate the applicant’s alleged participation in the conspiracy.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal record justifies refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 61(2)(a)
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1)
Subjects
- bail
- prima facie case
- co‑accused statements
- CDR evidence
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Maharashtra Police Act
- criminal conspiracy
- conditions of bail
Judgment
P.H. JAYANI 924 BA3730.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3730 OF 2026
Sachin Yuvraj Ahire …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Harekrishna Mishra i/b. Mr. T.S. Sachdevani for the
Applicant.
Ms. Kranti Hiwrale, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Akshay Dingale for the original Complainant.
Mr. S.R. Atpalkar, PSI, Ulhasnagar Police Station, present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
. Mr. Dingale, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
first informant/injured. Registry to accept his vakalatnama.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
3. Present application seeking release of the applicant on bail
in Cr.No.I-93/2026 registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station,
Dist. Thane for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1),
351(2), 61(2)(a), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 37(1) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act on the Report
dated 05.03.2026 filed by the informant Mr. Roshan Makhija.
4. In brief, the prosecution case is that on the relevant date, at
time and place, accused nos.1 and 2 assaulted the informant by
means of stone and iron cutter by hatching criminal conspiracy
with other accused persons including the applicant, on account of
a monetary dispute with accused Amit Wadhwa. At the time of the
incident, the informant was present near/in the office of his
Page 1 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 924 BA3730.2026.DOC
friend Samadhan Bagul. Said information, as alleged, was
provided by co-accused Akshay Saundankar to the present
applicant against which the applicant had paid Rs.25,000/- to
Akshay Saundankar. Further, Akshay Saundankar conveyed that
information to accused nos.1 and 2 and thus, the applicant abetted
in this offence. The aforesaid led to registration of the crime,
arrest of the accused persons including the applicant and filing of
charge-sheet.
5. Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
the said allegation against the applicant are based on the
statements of his co-accused given before the police, which is not
an admissible evidence. There is no other evidence against the
applicant. The injuries sustained by the informant are simple in
nature. He, on instructions, submitted that the applicant is even
ready to stay outside the districts of Mumbai, Thane and Raigad,
till the conclusion of the trial in this case. Therefore, he urged to
release the applicant on bail.
6. Ms. Hiwrale, the learned APP, on the other hand, submitted
that the CDR and SDR of the mobile phones of the applicant and
A2 show that, at the relevant time, the two were in contact with
each-other and that, the former had informed the A2 about
presence of the injured at the spot. This led to the successful attack
on the injured. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. I have considered these submissions. No direct evidence is
pointed from the record showing that the applicant had supplied
the information about the presence of the injured at the spot, to
facilitate the attack on him. In the absence of transcription about
the telephonic conversation between the applicant and A2, how far
the CDR and SDR would help establishing the case against the
Page 2 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 924 BA3730.2026.DOC
applicant, is a matter of trial. At this stage, that circumstance itself
is not sufficient to conclude that there is a prima facie case against
the applicant of the alleged offence.
8. In view thereof, I am inclined to release the applicant on
bail. However, considering the criminal antecedents against the
applicant, stringent conditions need to be imposed. Hence,
following Order :-
(i) The applicant – Sachin Yuvraj Ahire shall be released
on bail in Cr.No.I-93/2026 registered with Ulhasnagar
Police Station, Dist. Thane, on his executing P.R. Bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
(ii) As voluntarily undertaken by the applicant, during the
bail period, the applicant shall reside within the jurisdiction
of Vadner Bhairav Police Station, Post : Khadakjab, Taluka
Chandwad, Dist. Nashik and mark his attendance at Vadner
Bhairav Police Station, on 1 st day of a month in every two
months between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., till conclusion of
the trial.
However, the applicant is permitted to enter the said
districts to attend the criminal cases pending against him
including the present case.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence the
prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(iv) On being released from jail, the applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to the
Page 3 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 924 BA3730.2026.DOC
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in case
there is any change.
(v) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
for which he has been arraigned in this case.
(vi) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
application and should not influence the outcome of the
trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
9. The Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
PREETI (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
HEERO
JAYANI
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.09.29
20:20:59 +0530
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.