Bombay High Court
GAUTAM NILAKA @ NELKYA KALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND NAR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The bail application was rejected, as the applicant's criminal history and the seriousness of the alleged offences warranted continued custody.
Summary
The applicant, Gautam Nilaka, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for offences of robbery and related crimes under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He is accused No.2 in a case where senior citizens were robbed of gold ornaments, and the trial court had rejected his bail application. The applicant argued that the other two co‑accused, who have no prior records, were released on bail and that his only link to the crime was the recovery of gold ornaments from him. The State contended that the applicant is a habitual offender with numerous prior convictions for serious offences, and that the nature of the crime against vulnerable senior citizens warrants denial of bail. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., the court emphasized the importance of considering criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the offence. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- The applicant's entitlement to bail despite serious criminal antecedents.
- Whether the parity principle applies when co‑accused without prior records are released on bail.
- Whether the recovery of gold ornaments alone suffices to justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 309(6), 331(6), 332(b), 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324f, 337, 338, 34, 363, 380, 394, 457, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- habitual offender
- parity principle
- robbery
- senior citizens
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
1/6
14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 878 OF 2026
Gautam Nilaka @ Nelkya Kale …...Applicant
VERSUS.
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. …...Respondents
-----
Mr. Gaurav Kalekar (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Ganesh Khatkale, for Applicant.
Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State.
-------
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DHUDUM Date:
2026.09.22
20:48:13
+0530 DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kalekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant
and Mr. Avinash A. Naik, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State.
2. By this Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the Applicant seeks
Regular Bail in respect of C.R. No. 582 of 2025, registered at Malshiras
Police Station, Solapur, for offences punishable under Sections 309(6),
331(6), 332(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
“BNS”).
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/6
14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC
3. Mr. Gaurav Kalekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states
that there are three (3) Accused in Crime No.582 of 2025. The Applicant is
Accused No.2. He states that Crime No.582 of 2025 is registered as
Sessions Case No.5 of 2026 and is pending before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Malshiras (“Trial Court”).
4. The prosecution case is that the Accused in C.R. No.582 of 2025
committed robbery on 05.11.2025. In the said robbery, the Accused took
the Informant’s gold. The Informant in C.R. No.582 of 2025, where the
offences of robbery and house trespass were committed, is 85 years of age
and resides with his aged wife. Taking advantage of the age and
helplessness of the senior citizens, the Accused committed robbery of the
following articles, which are referred in the FIR:
1‐ 90]000@&# fdaerhps nksu rksGk otukph ,d lksU;kph pSu tq ‐ok‐
fda‐ v‐
2‐ 13]000@&# fdaerhps ,d eaxGlq=kpk rhu xzWaepk rqdMk tq ‐ok‐ fda‐
v‐
3‐ 9000@&# eksgu ekGspk nksu xzWaepk lksU;kpk rqdMk tq‐ok‐ fda‐ v‐
4‐ 13]0000@&# lksU;kph dkukrhy rhu xzWaepk fjax tq‐ok‐ fda‐ v‐
,dqu 1]25]000@&# ;s.ks] izek.ks ofjy o.kZukps o fdaerhps lksU;kps
nkxhu‐s
5. The Applicant was arrested on 07.11.2025. The Bail Application
filed by the Applicant at Exhibit-4 in Sessions Case No.5 of 2026 was
rejected by the Trial Court on 27.03.2026.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/6
14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC
6. Mr. Gaurav Kalekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states
that the allegations against the Applicant (Accused No.2) are similar to
those against Accused No.1 – Sagar Laxman Kharat. He submits that the
other two Accused have been released on bail. He therefore seeks bail on
the ground of parity. He further submits that the Applicant is implicated in
the crime solely on the basis of the recovery of two gold ornaments from
the Applicant. He further submits that apart from this recovery, there is no
other material to implicate the Applicant in C.R. No.582 of 2025.
7. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
– State, states that the Applicant is a habitual offender with several
criminal antecedents identical to the offence which is the subject matter of
Crime No. 582 of 2025. He further submits that two senior citizens were
targeted by the Accused in the crime. He refers to the order dated
27.03.2026 passed by the Trial Court on Exhibit-4 in Sessions Case No. 5 of
2026, wherein the Trial Court observed that the accused, like the
Applicant, operate by targeting vulnerable citizens. He therefore opposes
this application.
8. Perused the record.
9. The criminal antecedents of the Applicant are as follows:
Sr. Police Station C.R. No. Sections Session
No. Case
No.
1. Malshiras Tal – 69 of 2016 Section 380, -
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/6
14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC
Malshiras, District 34 of the
Solapur. IPC
2. Malshiras Tal – 205 of 2019 380 of the -
Malshiras, District IPC
Solapur.
3. Malshiras Tal – 167 of 2023 324f, 504 of -
Malshiras, District the IPC
Solapur.
4. Akluj, Tal-Malshiras, 90 of 2017 457, 380, -
District Solapur 34 of the
IPC
5. Akluj, Tal-Malshiras, 238 of 2017 457, 380, -
District Solapur 34 of the
IPC
6. Akluj, Tal-Malshiras, 284 OF 2017 457, 380, -
District Solapur 34 of the
IPC
7. Akluj, Tal-Malshiras, 296 OF 2017 307, 143, -
District Solapur 147, 148,
149 of the
IPC
8. Pandharpur Tal- 150 of 2018 394, 363, -
Pandharpur, District 337, 338,
Solapur 504, 506,
34 of the
IPC.
10. A perusal of the above-referred chart of criminal cases indicates
that the Applicant is involved in identical offences. Mr. Gaurav Kalekar,
learned Advocate for the Applicant, does not dispute the Applicant's
antecedents referred to above. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, learned A.P.P. for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State, is justified in contending that the
Applicant is a habitual offender and for that matter, a history sheeter. The
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5/6
14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC
crimes involved are not minor offences and are of serious nature, carrying
punishment that may extend to ten years.
11. The victims in Crime No. 582 of 2025 are senior citizens who
were targeted by the Applicant and the other Accused.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State
of U.P1 , in paragraph No. 15, has observed as follows:
“15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that
the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents
of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is
the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the
nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove,
are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in
custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such
crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as
jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightning having
the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical
mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while
admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and,
therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion
judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.”
13. The other two Accused in the crime, who have been released on
bail, apparently have no criminal antecedents. The material placed on
record in the file of this Application is sufficient to demonstrate
1 (2016) 15 SCC 422
Shantanu S. Dhudum
6/6
14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC
distinguishing circumstances that would warrant a different view in
the case of the Applicant.
14. The allegations in the case are that the Informant was
assaulted by the Accused, his gold chain and his wife’s mangalsutra
were snatched and she was dragged from the chair.
15. In view of the above, having regard to the nature of the
allegations against the Applicant, the recovery of gold ornaments at the
Applicant's instance and the Applicant's criminal antecedents, a strong case
against the Applicant is made out. Accordingly, this Application is rejected.
16. Criminal Bail Application No.878 of 2026 is disposed of.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…