Bombay High Court
JAMIL KHAN ASU KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicants on the condition of a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and sureties, subject to attendance and non‑interference conditions.
Summary
The applicants, Mufed (also known as Munfed, Chhote Khan Gafoor Khan) and Jamil Khan Asu Khan, were charged in Crime No. 170 of 2024 for allegedly breaking into an ATM and stealing Rs.31,01,200. The prosecution alleged the offences under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The applicants argued that two co‑accused in the same case had already been released on bail, invoking the principle of parity to seek similar relief. The State contended that the applicants might abscond if released. The Court, after hearing counsel and reviewing the charge sheet, granted bail to both applicants on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, subject to monthly police reporting and non‑interference conditions, and disposed of the applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants are entitled to bail on the principle of parity with co‑accused already released.
- Whether the nature of the offences and risk of absconding justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111, 305(a), 310(2), 324(4), 326(g), 331(1), 331(3), 331(4), 3(5), 61
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- ATM robbery
- parity principle
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
- surety
- personal bond
Judgment
37 & 44-BA-4014-4288-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.4014 OF 2025
Mufed @ Munfed @ Chhote Khan Gafoor Khan ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
with
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4288 OF 2025
Jamil Khan Asu Khan ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Tanveer Aziz Patel along with Nauman Abbas Patel, Advocate for the
Applicant in Bail Application No.4014 of 2025.
Mr. Santosh Singh, Advocate for the Applicant in Bail Application
No.4288 of 2025.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State in both Bail Applications.
PSI-Harshal Y. Bhole, Lasalgaon Police Station, Nashik Rural, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. These two applications are arising out of the same crime, and I
am deciding these applications by a common order.
2. By these applications, the applicants are seeking regular bail in
Crime No. 170 of 2024 registered with Lasalgaon Police Station, District
Nashik for the offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 324(4),
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR 331(1), 331(3), 326(g), 61, 310(2), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
KADAM
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.01.28
11:15:59 +0530
Act, 1984.
Page 1 of 3
37 & 44-BA-4014-4288-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
3. It is prosecution’s case that on 4th July 2024, around 1:45 am
to 2:00 am, the applicants and co-accused broke the ATM machine and
stole ₹31,01,200 /- from the ATM machine.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that co-
accused, against whom similar allegations are been made, have already
been released on bail by this Court, hence, the applicants are entitled to
bail on the principle of parity and requested to allow the applications.
5. Learned APP submitted that the applicants broke open the ATM
machine and stole the amount from it. If the applicants are released on
bail, they may abscond and requested to reject the application.
6. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the charge sheet,
and documents produced on record. Out of the two co-accused against
whom similar allegations are made, one has been enlarged on bail by this
Court (Justice N. R. Borkar, J.), and the other has been granted bail by the
learned Sessions Court, hence, the applicants are entitled to bail on the
principle of parity. Considering these facts, I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The applicants viz. Mufed @ Munfed @ Chhote Khan Gafoor
Khan and Jamil Khan Asu Khan be enlarged on bail in Crime
No. 170 of 2024 registered with Lasalgaon Police Station,
Page 2 of 3
37 & 44-BA-4014-4288-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
District Nashik, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- each with one or two local sureties in the like
amount.
(ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station once in
a month i.e. on first Saturday between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm,
till conclusion of the trial.
(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt
to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any
person concerned with the case.
Both applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and are
accordingly disposed of.
7. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…