Bombay High Court

PRAKASH LAXMIDATTA PANDEY @ BUNTY PANDEY @ ARYAN SHAH @ VIJAY SUBHASH SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 7 October 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court modified bail condition No. 21(1) to permit two solvent sureties without the requirement of them being local.

Summary

The petitioners sought modification of bail condition No. 21(1) which required two solvent local sureties, arguing they could not find such sureties as they reside in Dehradun. The trial court had granted bail on 17.07.2026 with that condition. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and a prior Bombay High Court decision, the petitioners contended that insisting on local sureties was excessive and violated Article 21. The State opposed, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the need for traceability. The Court, noting the petitioner’s inability to furnish local sureties and the guiding principles of proportionality, allowed the application and altered the condition to require two solvent sureties irrespective of locality, while leaving all other bail conditions unchanged.

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 upon the court’s ability to ensure the accused’s presence and the interests of justice.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

Subjects

bail
surety
local surety
modification of bail conditions
Article 21
fundamental rights
MCOCA
interim application
criminal appeal

Judgment

varsha 3-ia-3176-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3176 OF 2026
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 900 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 414 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:
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
2026.10.07
14:33:22
+0530 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 a
condition No. 21(1) 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-3176-2026.doc

as follows:

“21. Hence, the following order:

. The application stands allowed.
1. The Applicant shall be released on bail pending the appeal in
C.R. No. 16/2008 of D.C.B C.I.D, Crime Branch, Mumbai (C.R. No.
06/2008 registered with Marine Drive Police Station) in MCOCA
Special Case No. 6 of 2011, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent local sureties in the like amount.
2. After his release from Jail and during the pendency of the
present Appeal, the Applicant shall attend D.C.B C.I.D, Crime
Branch, 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, Crime Branch, Mumbai, only on the first
Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon.
3. 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.
4. Applicant shall furnish his residential address to IO, 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.
5. 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, Crime Branch, Mumbai and shall keep the said mobile phone
operational and switched on at all times. The mobile number shall
not be changed or switched off without prior intimation to the IO.
6. The Applicant shall remain present before this Court on each
and every date of hearing of the appeal.
7. 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.
8. The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without

2 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3176-2026.doc

informing the IO of D.C.B C.I.D, Crime Branch, Mumbai.
9. The Applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Court and shall deposit the passport, if any, with
this Court.
10. The Applicant shall not commit any offence during the period
of his release.
11. Violation of any of the conditions mentioned above will be
grounds to cancel the bail".

3. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that as per the
condition no. 21(1) 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

3 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3176-2026.doc

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
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 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3176-2026.doc

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
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.

5 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3176-2026.doc

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
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.

6 of 7
varsha 3-ia-3176-2026.doc

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.
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. 21(1) is modified, and it shall be read as follows:

"1. The Applicant shall be released on bail pending the
appeal in C.R. No. 16/2008 of D.C.B C.I.D, Crime
Branch, Mumbai (C.R. No. 06/2008 registered with
Marine Drive Police Station) in MCOCA Special Case
No. 6 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.