Bombay High Court

PRAKASH LAXMIDUTTA PANDEY @ BUNTY PANDEY @ ARYAN SHAH @ VIJAY SUBHASH SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 7 October 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court modified condition 26(b) to allow the applicant to furnish two solvent sureties without the requirement of locality.

Summary

The petitioners sought modification of condition 26(b) of a bail order dated 17.07.2026, which required the applicant to furnish two solvent local sureties. The applicant, a resident of Dehradun, Uttarakhand, was unable to find local sureties despite efforts, and argued that the requirement violated his fundamental rights under Article 21. The State opposed the modification, contending that local sureties were necessary to ensure the applicant's presence given the seriousness of the charges. The Court examined precedents, notably Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Syed Akif Syed Zaffruddin v. State of Maharashtra, which caution against excessive bail conditions and endorse flexibility in surety requirements. Relying on these authorities, the Court held that the local‑surety requirement was unduly onerous and modified the condition to permit any two solvent sureties. All other bail conditions remained unchanged, and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a bail condition mandating local sureties can be relaxed to non‑local sureties when the accused cannot procure local sureties.
Whether such relaxation infringes the court's interest in ensuring the accused's presence during trial.
Whether the original condition amounts to an excessive bail condition violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act

Subjects

bail
surety
local surety
modification of bail conditions
Article 21
Article 14
MCOCA
criminal appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

varsha 3-ia-3175-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3175 OF 2026
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1081 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2020

Prakash Laxmidatta Pandey @ .. Petitioners
Bunty Pandey @ Aryan Shah @
Vijay Subhash Sharma
V/S.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
-------------------
Ms. Akjshata B. Desai a/w S. Patel i.by Nitin Sejpal, for the applicant.
Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP, for the State.
Mr. Karan Mehta a/w Ms. Saloni, Ashwin Pande, Khushboo Shah and
Ishika Kale, for respondent No. 2-Narayan Poojary.
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
--------------------
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.10.07
14:33:22
+0530 CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER 2026.
ORDER: (PER SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J).

1. This is an application filed by the applicant for modification of
condition No. 26(b) imposed by this Court while granting bail vide
order dated 17.07.2026, to the extent that the Applicant be permitted
to furnish solvent sureties instead of solvent “local” sureties, as the
Applicant is not in a position to furnish local sureties.

2. The operative portion of the said order dated 17.07.2026 reads

1 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3175-2026.doc

as follows:

“26. Hence, the following order:

"a. The application stands allowed.
b. The Applicant shall be released on bail pending the appeal in C.R.
No. 141/2004 of D.C.B C.I.D Unit VIII, Mumbai (C.R. No. 32 of 2004
registered with Airport Police Station) in MCOCA Special Case No. 7 of
2011, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent
local sureties in the like amount.
c. After his release from Jail and during the pendency of the present
Appeal, the Applicant shall attend D.C.B C.I.D Unit VIII, Mumbai, on
every Monday of each month between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon,
initially for a period of one year from the date of this order. After the
end of one year, the Applicant shall attend D.C.B C.I.D Unit VIII,
Mumbai, only on the first Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m.
and 12.00 noon.
d. In case of two consecutive defaults in complying with the aforesaid
conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for
cancellation of bail.
e. The Applicant shall furnish his residential address to the Investigating
Officer, as well as the address where he will be residing after his release.
The same shall also be placed on record before this Court by way of an
affidavit.
f. The Applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the concerned
Investigating Officer (IO) or any other responsible officer of D.C.B C.I.D
Unit VIII, Mumbai and shall keep said mobile phone operational and
switched on at all times. The mobile number shall not be changed or be
kept switched off without prior intimation to the IO.
g. The Applicant shall remain present before this Court on each and
every date of hearing of the appeal.
h. The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, in
any manner whatsoever.
i. The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without
informing the I.O. of D.C.B C.I.D Unit VIII, Mumbai.
j. The Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of
the Court and shall deposit the passport, if any, with this court.

2 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3175-2026.doc

k. The Applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of his
release.
l. Violation of any of the conditions mentioned above will be a ground
to cancel the bail."

3. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that as per the
condition No. 26(b) referred hereinabove, the Applicant is required to
furnish two solvent local sureties. The learned counsel for the
Applicant submitted that all efforts made by the family members,
relatives and friends of the Applicant have not yielded any fruitful
results and despite their best efforts they could not arrange two solvent
local sureties. The learned counsel further submitted that the Applicant
hails from Dehradun, Uttarakhand and all his near and dear relatives
and friends are residing in Dehradun and therefore it is difficult for
him to find a local surety.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that more than one and
half months have elapsed since the Applicant has been granted bail,
however, it is only for this reason that the Applicant is not in a position
to avail the liberty granted by this court. The Applicant therefore prays
that instead of two solvent local sureties, the condition be modified to
furnish two solvent sureties.

5. The learned counsel for the Applicant relied upon the order
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Gandhi
versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. and the order passed by this
court in similar facts, in the case of Syed Akif Syed Zaffruddin versus
State of Maharashtra.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Gandhi versus

3 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3175-2026.doc

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra), has been pleased to observe as
follows:

"23. From time immemorial, the principle has been that the
excessive bail is no bail. To grant bail and thereafter to impose
excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left
hand, what is given with the right. As to what is excessive will
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
present case, the petitioner is experiencing a genuine difficulty
in finding multiple sureties. Sureties are essential to ensure the
presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time,
where the court is faced with the situation where the accused
enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in
multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement
of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An order which
would protect the person’s fundamental right under Article 21
and at the same time guarantee the presence, would be
reasonable and proportionate. As to what such an order
should be, will again depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case.

.......

26. We may also usefully note the order of this Court In Re
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail in SMWP (Criminal) No.
4/2021 reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 483. By the order
dated 31.01.2023, this Court endorsing certain directions
sought by the Amicus Curiae passed an order for compliance
with those directions. The two relevant directions are

4 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3175-2026.doc

extracted hereunder:-

6) If the bail bonds are not furnished within one month
from the date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo
moto take up the case and consider whether the conditions
of bail require modification/relaxation.

7) One of the reasons which delays the release of the
accused/convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is
suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose
the condition of local surety.

27. In the bail order in FIR No. 190/2020 registered at P.S.
Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan, there is an order for providing a
local surety. The petitioner herein hails from Haryana and to
secure a local surety will be an arduous task for him. This
condition has virtually rendered ineffective the order for bail. We
need to do nothing more than to recall the memorable words of
Justice Krishna Iyer in Moti Ram and Ors. vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47 :-

“33. To add insult to injury, the magistrate has demanded
sureties from his own district! (we assume the allegation in the
petition). What is a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do
if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal
trespass in Bastar, Port Blair Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? He
cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places.
He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch
or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian
unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What law
prescribes sureties from outside or non-regional language

5 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3175-2026.doc

applications? What law prescribes the geographical
discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court
district? This tendency takes many forms, sometimes,
geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Article 14
protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India.
Article 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a
court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the
Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a
vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according to
the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the
territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary
exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and
likewise many other minorities. This divagation has become
necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the
process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj
is made of united stuff.”

In view of the above, we propose to relieve the petitioner from the direction
to produce a local surety.”

7. Per contra, the learned APP vehemently opposed the application,
by submitting that the Applicant is charged with serious offenses and
therefore this Court had rightly imposed the condition of solvent local
sureties to ensure that the Applicant remains traceable. The learned
APP therefore urged that the application be rejected.

8. We have considered the rival submissions.

9. The Applicant is a resident of Dehradun, Uttarakhand and
therefore it appears that he is not in a position to find any local surety.

6 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3175-2026.doc

It is also to be noted that despite passing the order granting bail, the
Applicant is not in a position to avail the order of grant of bail only for
the reason that he is not in a position to furnish local surety.
Considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Girish Gandhi versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra)
and the order passed by this Court, in the case of Syed Akif Syed
Zaffruddin versus State of Maharashtra (supra) we are inclined to
allow the application .

10. In view of the above, the application is allowed, and condition
No. (b) is modified, and it shall be read as follows:

"b. The Applicant shall be released on bail pending the
appeal in C.R. No. 141/2004 of D.C.B C.I.D Unit VIII,
Mumbai (C.R. No. 32 of 2004 registered with Airport Police
Station) in MCOCA Special Case No. 7 of 2011, on his
furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent
sureties in the like amount ."

All other conditions imposed in the said order shall continue to
operate.

11. Application is disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Sharmila S Kaushik