Bombay High Court

ANURAG RAMCHANDRA YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 22 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

Bail was granted to the applicant on the condition of a cash bond and compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered the bail application of Anurak Ramchandra Yadav, who was charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Arms Act and the Maharashtra Police Act for allegedly assaulting a deceased with a knife and sword and participating in a violent mob. The trial court had denied bail, but the applicant argued that co‑accused with similar roles and even criminal antecedents had been released on bail, invoking the principle of parity. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences, the use of dangerous weapons by other accused, and the applicant’s prior criminal record. The Court noted that the applicant himself did not carry a weapon, that the investigation was complete, and that further detention would not aid the investigation while the trial was not imminent. Relying on parity and the lack of a substantive reason to keep him in custody, the Court granted bail subject to a cash bond and several attendance and non‑residence conditions.

Issues considered

The applicability of the principle of parity in granting bail to an accused involved in a murder‑related offence.
Whether the applicant’s alleged participation in a violent assault without personally wielding a weapon justifies bail.
Whether the completion of investigation and the anticipated delay in trial warrant release on bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 115(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 351(3)
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1)(a)

Subjects

bail
murder
assault with deadly weapon
parity principle
criminal antecedent
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Arms Act
Maharashtra Police Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

P.H. JAYANI                                               901 BA4809.2025.DOC


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4809 OF 2025
Anurag Ramchandra Yadav                                    …. Applicant
       V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                …. Respondent


Mr. Ashok Rao a/w. Ms. Osman Chishty i/b. Mr. Yogesh Shelar
for the applicant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Shaikh, PI, Ghatkopar Police Station, present.


                            CORAM:        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                            DATED :       22 nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C. :-

1.        Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
Learned APP tendered a report received from PI Mr. Shaikh,
Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai. It is taken on record.

2.        The applicant seeks his release on bail in C.R.No.1060/2024
registered with Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 115(2), 351(3), 189(2),
189(4), 191(2), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections
4 and 25 of Arms Act and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

3.        Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 17.09.2024, at
about 19:30 hours, near Shivneri Seva Mandal Shop, Ramji Nagar
Batwadi, Ghatkopar, the applicant and 13 others assaulted the
deceased – Paresh by means of knife and sword, on account of
previous enmity. When the informant tried to intervene, he was
also assaulted by the accused persons. Therefore, the aforesaid


                                 Page 1 of 3
P.H. JAYANI                                              901 BA4809.2025.DOC



crime came to be registered on the Report dated 18.09.2024,
lodged by Mr. Prathmesh Gotal. On completion of investigation,
police submitted the charge-sheet. The trial Court declined the
bail bail relief. Hence, this Application.

4.       Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is claiming bail on the principle of parity as the co-
accused persons having similar role and Jai Ansari who has been
attributed more serious role in the crime, have been released on
bail. He has submitted that, in the previous case u/s. 452, 354,
354D, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. U/Ss.8 & 12 of POCSO Act, the
applicant is on bail. Therefore, he urged to grant the bail.

5.       Ms. Shinde, the learned APP opposed the Application. She
submitted that all the accused persons including the applicant
mercilessly assaulted the deceased by means of dangerous
weapons. Although the applicant has not used any weapon in the
assault, he cannot escape the liability for the charge of the murder
having shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. The
applicant has criminal antecedent. This denies him the bail.

6.       I have considered these submissions. Admittedly, the
applicant had not carried any weapon to assault the deceased.
Certain co-accused persons who have been attributed similar role,
have been granted bail. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel submits that
three co-accused who have been granted bail, are also having
criminal antecedents. Therefore, on the principle of parity, the
applicant is entitled for bail. It is submitted that as investigation is
over, further detention of the applicant in jail will not serve any
purpose. The trial is not likely to commence and conclude in a
foreseeable period. In the wake of the above, the applicant is
entitled for bail. Hence, the following Order :-

                               Page 2 of 3
                      P.H. JAYANI                                             901 BA4809.2025.DOC



                      (i)      The applicant - Anurag Ramchandra Yadav shall be released
                      on bail in C.R.No.1060/2024 registered with Ghatkopar Police
                      Station, Mumbai on his executing 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 Ghatkopar Police
                      Station, Mumbai on 1st and 16th day of each calender month
                      between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.

                      (iii)    The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before
                      the jurisdictional Court unless exempted.

                      (iv)     The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
                      evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the
                      prosecution witnesses 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 Investigating
                      Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

                      (vi)     After release from jail, the applicant shall not reside and
                      enter in Ghatkopar area till conclusion of the trial, except for the
                      purpose of attendance in Ghatkopar Police Station.

                      (vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
                      Order are for the purpose of deciding this Bail Application. The
                      trial Court should not get influenced by any of the said
                      observations and decide the said case on its own merit.

                      7.       Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

  PREETI
  HEERO
  JAYANI
Digitally signed by
                                                       (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.09.24
14:48:37 +0530

                                                      Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Veera Shinde