Bombay High Court

GANESH SHANKAR KOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of distinguishing factors and considering the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention, bail should be granted on parity with the co‑accused, subject to conditions.

Summary

The applicant, accused of offences under Sections 376(2)(1), 376(D) and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sought regular bail in a case pending before the Sessions Court, Solapur. The prosecution alleged sexual assault of a disabled victim, who later died. The applicant argued for bail on the ground of parity, noting that the co‑accused (Accused No.1) had been released on bail in a similar case. The court examined prior bail applications, the seriousness of the charges, the lack of eye‑witnesses, and the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention of over five years. Finding no material distinction and deeming the detention unjustified, the court granted bail with a surety bond and specific conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the applicant on the ground of parity with the co‑accused who was released on bail.
Whether the length of pre‑trial detention justifies granting bail despite the seriousness of the offences.
Whether any distinguishing circumstances exist that would warrant a different bail decision for the applicant.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 376(2)(1), 376(D), 506

Subjects

bail
parity
pre‑trial detention
sexual assault
IPC
high court
regular bail
conditions of bail

Judgment

81-BA-805-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 805 OF 2026
Ganesh Shankar Kore ...Applicant
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
-----
Mr. Prabodhan Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent – State.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 22nd September, 2026.
P.C. :

1. This Application is listed at Serial No. 81 of the “Daily Causelist”.

At 10:30 am, Mr. Prabodhan Jadhav, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, requested that this Application be taken up out of turn. In

view of the request made by Mr Prabodhan Jadhav, learned Advocate

for the Applicant, and with the consent of Mr S. H. Yadav, learned APP

for the Respondent – State, this Application was taken up out of turn at

6:30 pm.

2. By this Application, the Applicant seeks Regular Bail in

connection with C.R. No. 454 of 2021, registered with the M.I.D.C.

Police Station, District Solapur, for offences punishable under Sections

376(2)(1), 376(D), and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

Arjun 1
81-BA-805-2026.doc

3. Mr. Prabodhan Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states

that there are two (2) Accused in Crime No. 454 of 2021, the Applicant

being Accused No. 2. He states that Crime No. 454 of 2021 is registered

as Sessions Case No. 160 of 2021 and is pending on the file of the

Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur (“Trial Court”)

4. The prosecution case is that the Applicant and the co-accused

sexually assaulted Respondent No. 2 – the Victim, taking advantage of

her disability.

5. Mr. Prabodhan Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

submits that the Applicant seeks bail on the ground of parity. He

submits that Accused No. 1 (Sohel Imamsab Attar), against whom the

allegations in Crime No. 454 of 2021 are similar to those against the

Applicant, has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated

18.04.2026. He submits that Respondent No. 2 – Victim – has passed

away on 23.11.2025. He submits that since Accused No. 1 has been

released on bail, the Applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

6. Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned APP for the Respondent – State, submits

that as the allegations against the Applicant and Accused No. 1 (Sohel

Imamsab Attar) are similar in Crime No. 454 of 2021, the Applicant’s

Arjun 2
81-BA-805-2026.doc

case can be considered on the ground of parity. However, he refers to

the order dated 14.06.2022, passed by this Court in Bail Application No.

75 of 2022, rejecting the Applicant’s request for bail. He further refers

to the order dated 06.05.2026, passed by this Court in Bail Application

No. 376 of 2026, rejecting the 2nd Bail Application filed by the

Applicant.

7. The record was perused with the assistance of the learned

Advocates for the parties.

8. The order dated 06.05.2026, passed by this Court in Bail

Application No. 376 of 2026, filed by the Applicant, is set out below:

1. The learned A.P.P. for the respondent, on instructions,
submits that the trial is on the verge of conclusion.

2. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the applicant
seeks leave to withdraw this application, with liberty to approach
this Court again if the trial is not concluded within three months.

3. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed as
withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty.

9. Accused No. 1 (Sohel Imamsab Attar), against whom the

allegations in Crime No. 454 of 2021 are similar, has been released on

bail by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2026, passed in Bail

Application No. 268 of 2026 (Exhibit F, page nos. 89 to 92 of the

Arjun 3
81-BA-805-2026.doc

Application paperbook) Mr. Prabodhan Jadhav, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, refers to paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the order dated

18.04.2026 which are transcribed herein below in verbatim :-

4. Per contra, learned APP and learned Advocate for
Respondent/victim opposed the application submitting that the
offence is serious in nature. The applicant along with co-accused
has repeatedly committed sexual assault against the
handicapped victim. An apprehension is also expressed that if
the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of
applicant fleeing away or influencing the victim. Hence, prayed
to reject the application.

5. Having heard the submissions from the respective sides
and upon perusal of the record including charge-sheet prima
facie indicate that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.
There are general allegations against the applicant. Further,
there is no eye witness to the alleged incident. Perusal of the
medical report indicates no injuries on the body of the victim.

6. Further perusal of the record indicates that the victim in
her supplementary statement has improvised the allegation of
the applicant threatening to kill her and parents. Thus, prima
facie the possibility over implication cannot be ruled out.

7. Nevertheless, the investigation is complete for all intent
and purpose, resultantly, the charge-sheet is filed. Having regard
to the age of the applicant and his period of detention from his
arrest on 19.07.2021 which for more than 4 years and 9
months, in my considered opinion may amount pre-trial
detention, which is neither justified nor warranted. Hence, I am
inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.

10. The trial in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2021 will take some time to

conclude. Accused No. 1 was released on bail in respect of similar

allegations to those made against the Applicant. No material has been

placed on record to show any distinguishing circumstances that would

Arjun 4
81-BA-805-2026.doc

warrant this Court taking a different view in the case of the Applicant.

Mr. Prabodhan Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Applicant, is therefore

justified in seeking bail on the ground of parity.

11. In view of the above and considering that the Applicant has been

in jail since 19.07.2021, i.e. almost 5 years and 2 months, continuation

of the Applicant's detention in Crime No. 454 of 2021 is not warranted.

This Application is therefore allowed on the following conditions :-

(a) The Applicant in Crime No. 454 of 2021, dated

19.07.2021, registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station,

Solapur, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a PR

bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)

with one or two sureties in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 160

of 2021.

(b) The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly,

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade that

person from disclosing the facts to the Court or any

police officer. Applicant shall not tamper with evidence

Arjun 5
81-BA-805-2026.doc

in any manner.

release, provide the Investigating Officer at MIDC

Police Station, Solapur, with his residential address and

proof thereof, his contact number and must inform the

Investigating Officer of any changes to this information

from time to time.

(d) The Applicant shall regularly appear before the

Trial Court, in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2021,

whenever the matter is fixed, unless specifically

exempted. If the Applicant absents himself from

appearing before the Trial Court on the date fixed, the

same would be considered as a breach of condition and

the Trial Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate

orders.

12. Bail Application No. 805 of 2026 is disposed of.

Digitally
signed by
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.09.22
21:24:45
+0530

Arjun 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…