NAGESH VIKRAM BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:46084
                                             -1-
                                                                   48-BA-812-2026

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            BAIL APPLICATION NO. 812 OF 2026

              Shrihari Hardas Chavan                           …. Applicant
                    Versus
              The State of Maharashtra                         …. Respondent

                                             WITH
                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 626 OF 2026
              Nagesh Vikram Bhosale                            .… Applicant
                      Versus
              The State of Maharashtra                         .… Respondent

                                             WITH
                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 818 OF 2026
              Siddesh Sadish Kale                              .… Applicant
                      Versus
              The State of Maharashtra                         .… Respondent

                                             …..
              Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande a/w Mr. Avinash M. Reddy, Advocate
              for Applicants in BA/812/2026 and BA/818/2026
              Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicant in BA/626/2026
              Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent - State
                                             …..

                                         CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                RESERVED ON : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026
                              PRONOUNCED ON : 01st OCTOBER 2026
              ORDER :

              1.        These three applications seek regular bail in connection

              with Crime No.63 of 2025 registered with Parner Police Station,

              District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections

              309(6), 310(2), 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

              2023 and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra
                                -2-
                                                          48-BA-812-2026

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, “the MCOC Act”).

Since the applications arise out of the same crime and raise

common questions concerning the effect of the earlier orders of bail

and the subsequent addition of the offences under the MCOC Act,

they are being decided by this common order.


2.         The   prosecution    states   that,   during     the   night

intervening 24th and 25th January, 2025, at about 2.00 a.m., four

masked persons forcibly entered the house of the informant,

Yogesh Khandu Sherkar, at Pathar Vasti, Sobalewadi, Taluka

Parner. They were allegedly armed with a wooden stick and an iron

rod. The inmates were threatened and assaulted. Gold ornaments

worn by the informant’s mother and grandmother were forcibly

removed. Cash and other articles were taken away and the

prosecution values the property at about Rs.2,75,000/-. The mobile

handset of the informant was damaged and the offenders allegedly

left the place with his TVS Star City motorcycle bearing

registration No.MH-16-CZ-6818. The FIR was lodged on 25 th

January, 2025 against four unknown persons.


3.         The prosecution further states that the applicants and

the other accused were identified during investigation as persons

concerned with the occurrence. The first charge-sheet for the

offences under the BNS was filed on 6 th May, 2025. The
                                -3-
                                                      48-BA-812-2026

investigating agency thereafter placed a proposal for invoking the

MCOC Act. Prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of that Act was

granted by the Special Inspector General of Police, Nashik Range,

under Order No.998 of 2025 dated 7 th June, 2025. The sanctioning

authority subsequently granted sanction under Section 23(2) on

12th September, 2025. A further charge-sheet incorporating the

offences under the MCOC Act was thereafter filed.


4.         Before the offences under the MCOC Act were added,

the applicants had applied for bail in respect of the offences under

the BNS. The applications were allowed on 9th June, 2025. The

applicants, however, had not been physically released from jail

because the bail formalities had not been completed and, in the

case of some applicants, custody in another crime was also stated

to be operating. The prosecution moved an application on 12 th

June, 2025 seeking their custody in the newly added offences. The

learned Court permitted the request on 13 th June, 2025 and the

applicants were produced from jail and taken in custody on 17 th

June, 2025. Their applications for bail after the addition of the

MCOC Act came to be rejected by the Special Court. They have

therefore approached this Court.


5.         Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the

FIR was lodged against unknown persons and none of the
                                  -4-
                                                         48-BA-812-2026

applicants was named in it. He submits that though the informant

is stated to have identified one or more applicants, the other

identifying    witnesses   did   not    support   such   identification.

According to him, there is no reliable recovery at the instance of

the applicants and the investigation is now complete. He submits

that the applicants were granted bail by the Sessions Court after

the charge-sheet for the original offences had been filed. The

prosecution did not challenge those orders and therefore the

merits of the original occurrence cannot now be reopened under

the guise of considering bail for the MCOC Act offences.



6.            Learned Advocate for the applicants further submits

that the applicants stood released in law immediately upon the

orders of bail being passed on 9 th June, 2025, even though they

remained in jail for completing the bail formalities or because of

custody in another case. Consequently, they could not have been

arrested or detained for the subsequently added offences without

cancellation of the earlier bail, a fresh arrest, communication of the

grounds of arrest and a reasoned order of the Court which had

granted bail. He submits that merely obtaining the applicants’

production from jail could not amount to lawful arrest under the

MCOC Act.
                                  -5-
                                                        48-BA-812-2026

7.          Learned Advocate also questions the very application of

the MCOC Act. He submits that most of the earlier crimes were

initially registered against unknown persons and that the

applicants were subsequently shown as accused merely because

they belong to the Pardhi community. He argues that the nature of

some previous offences, including allegations of petty theft, does

not demonstrate an organised crime syndicate or continuing

unlawful activity undertaken for pecuniary gain. He submits that

the sanctioning authority did not independently examine this

aspect. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 20th January,

2026 passed in Bail Application No.2514 of 2025 granting bail to

co-accused Ganesh Suresh Bhosale. It is submitted that the

applicants are similarly placed and are entitled to parity. Lastly, it

is submitted that the applicants have undergone incarceration for

about one year and seven months, the charge has not been framed

and the trial is unlikely to conclude shortly.



8.          Learned APP opposes the applications. He submits that

the material collected during investigation prima facie shows that

the applicants acted as members of an organised crime syndicate

which repeatedly committed offences against persons and property

for pecuniary gain. The antecedent chart shows several charge-

sheets for offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or
                                 -6-
                                                            48-BA-812-2026

more, of which cognizance was taken within the preceding ten

years. He submits that the applicants were subjected to a test

identification   parade   and   were    identified.   The    informant’s

motorcycle was recovered during investigation; the fingerprints of

co-accused Ganesh Bhosale were found on the damaged mobile

handset; and the robbed ornaments were disposed of through

another   co-accused.     According    to   the   learned   APP,    these

circumstances have to be read together and not in isolation.



9.          Learned APP further submits that there was no

unilateral re-arrest by the police. An application seeking custody

was filed on 12th June, 2025; permission was granted by the

competent Court on 13th June, 2025; and only thereafter were the

applicants produced from jail and taken into custody on 17 th June,

2025. He submits that the law does not require the empty

formality of first releasing a person from the prison gate and

immediately arresting him again when he is already in lawful

custody and the Court has authorised his custody for the newly

added offences. As regards parity, he submits that the order

granting bail to Ganesh Bhosale proceeded on the assumption that

Siddhesh Kale had already been released on bail on the same

footing. Siddhesh’s earlier bail, however, concerned only the

offences under the BNS and his later bail application under the
                                 -7-
                                                        48-BA-812-2026

MCOC Act was rejected. The             State   has therefore   sought

cancellation of the bail granted to Ganesh. The learned APP

submits that, having regard to the criminal antecedents and the

statutory restrictions under Section 21(4), the applicants are not

entitled to bail.



10.         The rival submissions give rise to three connected

questions. The first is whether, after bail had been granted for the

original offences but before the applicants were physically

released, the investigating agency could take them into custody for

the subsequently added MCOC Act offences without a fresh judicial

order. The second is whether the grant of bail in the original

offences prevents this Court from examining the facts of the

occurrence while deciding bail under the MCOC Act. The third is

whether the material placed by the prosecution satisfies the Court

that the applicants can be released consistently with Section 21(4)

of the MCOC Act.



11.         The     legal position governing addition of graver

cognizable and non-bailable offences after grant of bail is settled by

the Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand , (2019)

17 SCC 326. The Supreme Court recognised four permissible

courses. The accused may surrender and seek bail for the added
                                   -8-
                                                           48-BA-812-2026

offences. The investigating agency may seek an order for arrest

and custody by invoking the powers then contained in Sections

437(5)   or   439(2)    of   the    Code   of   Criminal     Procedure.

Corresponding powers are now found in Sections 480(5) and

483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The

Court may direct the accused to be arrested and committed to

custody, with or without formal cancellation of the earlier bail

depending upon the facts. What is impermissible is a unilateral

arrest by the investigating agency for the added offences without

obtaining an order from the Court which had granted bail. These

principles have recently been reiterated in Sumit v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another, AIR 2026 SC 905.



12.        The grant of bail and physical release from prison are

related but distinct events. An order granting bail removes the

authority to detain the accused in that case once its conditions are

fulfilled. It does not, however, wipe out lawful custody in another

case, nor does it extend by implication to a serious non-bailable

offence subsequently added to the same crime. At the same time,

the police cannot take advantage of the accused being physically

present in jail and treat that circumstance as a substitute for

judicial permission. What the law insists upon is judicial scrutiny

before the liberty granted by the earlier bail order is curtailed on
                                 -9-
                                                        48-BA-812-2026

account of the added offence. Once such judicial permission is

obtained, the law does not require a meaningless exercise of

releasing the accused from one gate of the prison and arresting

him again at the same place.



13.        In the present case, the chronology recorded before the

Court shows that, after the orders of bail dated 9 June 2025, the

prosecution applied for custody on 12 th June, 2025. The

application was allowed on 13th June, 2025. The applicants were

thereafter produced from jail and their custody was taken on 17 th

June, 2025. Thus, the investigating agency did not act solely on its

own authority. Judicial permission intervened before custody was

taken for the added offences. In these circumstances, a separate

physical release and re-arrest was not necessary. Nor was

cancellation of the earlier bail an invariable precondition, since the

earlier bail continues to govern the original offences while the

entitlement to bail for the added MCOC Act offences has to be

decided afresh. The first submission of the applicants therefore

cannot be accepted.



14.        The second submission also requires a distinction. The

orders dated 9th June, 2025 granting bail for the original offences

have neither been cancelled nor set aside. This Court is not sitting
                                  -10-
                                                        48-BA-812-2026

in appeal over those orders and cannot reconsider the same

material merely to reach a different conclusion on bail for the BNS

offences. Nevertheless, the occurrence of 25th January, 2025 is

alleged by the prosecution to be the organised crime committed by

the syndicate. The evidence connecting each applicant with that

occurrence is therefore directly relevant when the Court examines

whether the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the

MCOC Act are prima facie disclosed. Consideration of that material

for this limited statutory purpose does not amount to reviewing or

cancelling the earlier orders of bail.



15.         Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act imposes restrictions in

addition to the ordinary considerations governing bail. Once the

Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court must be

satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the

accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely

to commit an offence while on bail. In Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing

Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, the Supreme

Court explained that the Court is not required to record a finding of

acquittal at the stage of bail. The material has to be examined on

broad probabilities to determine whether the accusation, so far as

the particular accused is concerned, is inherently improbable. At

the same time, the twin conditions cannot be diluted or omitted
                                -11-
                                                      48-BA-812-2026

from consideration. This requirement has again been emphasised

in Jayshree Kanabar v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 2 SCC 797.



16.        It is equally settled that, for establishing continuing

unlawful activity, the earlier charge-sheets need not all be against

every individual who is subsequently shown to be a member of the

syndicate. The relevant inquiry is whether more than one

qualifying charge-sheet concerning the activity of the organised

crime syndicate was filed within the preceding ten years and

cognizance was taken, and whether there is prima facie material

connecting the particular accused with that syndicate or with an

offence committed on its behalf. This position follows from Zakir

Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 20 SCC 408.

Therefore, the mere circumstance that several FIRs were initially

registered against unknown persons does not make the subsequent

charge-sheets irrelevant. Equally, registration of numerous FIRs

by itself cannot replace proof of qualifying charge-sheets,

cognizance and nexus with the syndicate.



17.        The papers placed before the Court include the approval

and sanction orders referring to the previous charge-sheets and

recording that the offences were committed, singly or jointly, by

members of the alleged syndicate for unlawful pecuniary gain. The
                                -12-
                                                       48-BA-812-2026

prosecution also relies on the antecedent chart and on the

circumstance that several accused figure together in more than

one prosecution. At this stage, the Court is not examining the

ultimate validity of the sanction or deciding whether every

previous accusation will result in conviction. The material is,

however, sufficient to prevent the Court from recording that the

allegation of continuing unlawful activity by a syndicate is

inherently improbable.



18.        As regards the present occurrence, the FIR was

admittedly against unknown persons. That circumstance requires

careful scrutiny of the subsequent identification, but it does not by

itself render the identification unacceptable. The prosecution relies

on the test identification parade and on the witnesses who

identified the accused. The applicants point out that all witnesses

did not identify every applicant. That is a matter affecting the

weight of the evidence and will have to be tested at trial. The

papers also disclose a dispute as to whether recovery of the

informant’s motorcycle is attributable to Siddhesh Kale or Shrihari

Chavan. No final finding on that recovery can be recorded in these

proceedings. Similarly, the fingerprint allegedly found on the

informant’s damaged mobile handset is attributed to co-accused

Ganesh Bhosale and cannot be treated as incriminating material
                                   -13-
                                                       48-BA-812-2026

personally recovered from any of the present applicants. Even

after   excluding   that   circumstance    from   their   individual

assessment, the identification material, the prosecution’s case

regarding their association with the other accused and the

antecedent material cannot be said to be so deficient that

reasonable grounds exist for believing that the applicants are not

guilty of the MCOC Act offences.



19.        The submission that the applicants were implicated

because they belong to the Pardhi community has been considered.

A person’s caste, tribe or community can never constitute

incriminating material and no adverse inference can be drawn

from it. The prosecution must stand or fall only on legally

admissible evidence. In the present case, however, the allegation of

discriminatory implication is not, at this stage, supported by

material sufficient to displace the identification, the charge-sheets

and the alleged inter se association relied upon by the prosecution.

The applicants will be at liberty to establish that defence during

trial, when the witnesses and the investigating officers can be

tested by cross-examination.



20.        The order dated 20th January, 2026 granting bail to

Ganesh Suresh Bhosale has also been considered. Parity is a
                                -14-
                                                      48-BA-812-2026

relevant consideration, but it is not an abstract or mechanical

formula. The said order relied substantially on the circumstance

that Siddhesh Kale had been granted bail by the Sessions Court.

The order granting bail to Siddhesh was passed before the MCOC

Act was invoked and did not decide his entitlement under Section

21(4). Indeed, his subsequent application under the MCOC Act was

rejected. The factual foundation on which parity was extended to

Ganesh is therefore not available in the present applications.

Moreover, the antecedents and the material connecting every

accused with the alleged syndicate require individual examination.

The order in Ganesh’s case consequently does not, by itself, satisfy

the twin conditions in favour of these applicants.



21.        The applicants have remained in custody for a

considerable period, the investigation is complete and the charge

has not yet been framed. These circumstances weigh in favour of

an early trial. However, the custody undergone till now, when

viewed against the nature of the accusation and the material

presently available, is not by itself sufficient to override Section

21(4). Upon an overall consideration, this Court is unable to record

reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants are not guilty

of the alleged offences under the MCOC Act. In view of the

antecedent material relied upon by the prosecution, the Court is
                                      -15-
                                                             48-BA-812-2026

also unable to record the further satisfaction that they are not

likely to commit an offence while on bail. The statutory conditions

are therefore not fulfilled.



22.           These observations are only for deciding the present

applications.    The     trial   Court   shall   evaluate   the   evidence

independently and shall not treat any prima facie observation in

this order as a concluded finding. At the same time, continued

detention cannot be allowed to become a substitute for trial. Having

regard to the period already undergone and the number of accused

and witnesses, the Special Court must give due priority to the

proceeding. 23. Hence, the following order:

                                   ORDER

      (i)     Bail Application Nos.626 of 2026, 812 of 2026 and 818
              of 2026 are rejected.

      (ii)    The learned Special Judge shall endeavour to frame the
              charge as expeditiously as possible and preferably
              within four weeks from receipt of this order, unless
              prevented by any legal impediment attributable to the
              accused.

      (iii)   The trial shall thereafter be taken up on priority and an
              endeavour shall be made to conclude it within one year.
              The prosecution and all the accused shall cooperate and
              shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
                                  -16-
                                                          48-BA-812-2026




      (iv)   If the trial does not make substantial progress within
             the aforesaid period for reasons not attributable to the
             applicants, it shall be open to them to apply afresh for
             bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay.
             Such applications shall be decided on their own merits
             and in accordance with the legal position then
             prevailing.


      (v)    All observations made in this order are prima facie and
             confined to the decision of these bail applications.




                                         (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                JUDGE




Tandale