Bombay High Court
AKASH LAXMAN KHARWAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court modified condition (b) of the bail order, allowing the applicant's release and permitting payment of cash bail and a personal recognizance bond within two months.
Summary
The applicant, Akash Laxman Kharwa, filed an interim application seeking modification of a bail condition that required immediate payment of cash bail. The court noted that despite the earlier bail order dated 21.04.2026, the applicant remained incarcerated because he could not pay the required amount and had no assistance. The judge considered the applicant's inability to comply with condition (b) and decided to amend it, allowing the applicant's release and permitting him to furnish cash bail and a personal recognizance bond of Rs.5,000 within two months of release. The original condition (b) was deleted and replaced with the new provision. All other terms of the bail order remained unchanged, and the interim application was allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail condition requiring immediate payment of cash bail should be modified due to the applicant's inability to comply
Subjects
- bail
- interim application
- condition modification
- release
- cash bail
- personal recognizance bond
- criminal procedure
Judgment
33.IA.2210.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2210 OF 2026
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO.845 OF 2025
Akash Laxman Kharwa .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Satyajeet Dighe, Advocate for Applicant appointed Advocate.
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Vilasini Balasubramanian, appinted Advocate for Respondent
No.2.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Dighe, learned appointed Advocate for Applicant;
Ms. Phad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms.
Balasubramanian, learned appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. In view of the previous order dated 21.08.2026, the learned
appointed Advocate has persuaded the Court to consider the
Application because notwithstanding that order, Applicant is still
incarcerated in jail in view of non-compliance of condition No.(b). I
have perused the said condition. I have heard both the learned
appointed Advocates for Applicant and Respondent No.2. It is an irony
that despite the bail order, Applicant has not been able to pay the
amount for bail, neither there is any person to help the Applicant.
1 of 2
33.IA.2210.2026.doc
3. Since Applicant has not being able to comply with condition
No.(b), I am inclined to allow the Application and modify condition
No.(b) as hereinunder:-
“bi) Applicant be released forthwith. Upon release, the
Applicant be permitted to furnish cash bail and P.R.
Bond of Rs.5,000/- within two months after his
release.”
4. The original condition No.(b) in the order dated 21.04.2026
stands deleted and substituted by the above condition. Rest of the
order remains the same.
5. With the above directions, Interim Application is allowed and
disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
SAWANT
HANUMANT Date:
SAWANT 2026.09.07
20:13:00
+0530
2 of 2
Checking your session…