The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, granted bail to two accused persons in a case involving serious offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. The Court emphasized the principle of parity and the prolonged incarceration without trial as decisive factors in granting bail, despite the serious nature of the allegations.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The FIR in Crime No.122 of 2023 was registered at Nanded Rural Police Station on 26.02.2023, alleging the murder of Raj, son of the informant Kesharbhai. The informant alleged that her son had been threatened by associates of one Bala @ Vinod @ Ukaji Sawale for refusing to lend a vehicle for a tour. The incident reportedly occurred on 25.02.2023, when Raj was attacked by a group armed with Khanjars and a pistol, resulting in his death.
Key Facts
- The applicants, Vikas Kamble and Harshawardhan Lohkar, are arraigned as accused nos.6 and 3 respectively.
- Vikas Kamble was arrested on 01.08.2023, while Harshawardhan Lohkar was arrested on 27.02.2023.
- The chargesheet was filed on 25.08.2023, but no charges have been framed as of the date of the judgment.
- The offence is registered under Sections 302, 386, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323 of the IPC, Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act, Sections 3, 4, 25, 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
- The informant’s son was allegedly assaulted earlier, and threats were issued to the family.
Procedural History
- 26.02.2023: FIR registered at Nanded Rural Police Station.
- 28.04.2025: Earlier bail applications filed by the applicants were rejected by the Court.
- 25.08.2023: Chargesheet filed in the case.
- 16.01.2025: Draft charges submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor.
- 30.01.2025: Accused no.6 filed an application for discharge, which was rejected on 08.01.2026.
- 23.07.2024: Bail granted to Sumit Godbole and Gopinath Mungal in BA/400/2024 and BA/419/2024.
- 26.09.2024: Bail granted to Kundan Landge and Raju @ Chindi Dhanakwad in BA/1551/2024 and BA/1556/2024.
- 24.03.2026: Bail granted to Kiran Suresh More and Lahuji @ Avadhut Dasarwad.
- 12.06.2026: The Court called for a report from the trial court regarding the status of the case.
- 04.07.2026: Report received from the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, indicating that the matter is still at the stage of appearance and no charges have been framed.
- 10.07.2026: Next date for appearance given as 06.08.2026.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicants
- The applicants argued that they have been incarcerated for nearly three years without the framing of charges or commencement of trial.
- They contended that six other accused have already been granted bail, and thus, on the ground of parity, they are entitled to bail.
- They also relied on the principle that long incarceration without trial justifies bail.
For the Respondent-State
- The State opposed the bail applications, citing the serious nature of the offence, including murder and the application of the MCOC Act.
- The State argued that the applicants do not qualify for bail on the ground of parity, given their alleged roles in the offence.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought bail on the grounds of parity and long incarceration without trial, with conditions to ensure their presence during the trial and to prevent tampering with evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prolonged incarceration of the applicants without the framing of charges or commencement of trial, coupled with the grant of bail to other co-accused, justified the grant of bail on the grounds of parity and long incarceration.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant in BA/716/2026
Ms. Pratiksha Magre, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that the applicant is falsely implicated and no specific role is attributed to him. She contended that the applicant has been incarcerated for nearly three years without the framing of charges or commencement of trial. She relied on the principle of parity, as six other accused have been granted bail.
For the Applicant in BA/530/2026
Shri Nilesh S. Ghanekar, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is arraigned as accused no.3 and that the present application is a successive bail application. He argued that the chargesheet was filed in August 2023 and that the applicant has been incarcerated since February 2023. He contended that no charges have been framed and that six other accused have been granted bail, thus justifying bail on the ground of parity.
For the Respondent-State
The State, through the learned APP and the counsel for the informant, opposed the bail applications. They argued that the offence is serious, involving murder and the application of the MCOC Act. They contended that the applicants do not qualify for bail on the ground of parity, given their alleged roles in the offence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the facts and circumstances of the case, including the prolonged incarceration of the applicants without the framing of charges or commencement of trial. The Court noted that six other accused have already been granted bail, and that the applicants are entitled to parity.
The Court observed that the chargesheet was filed on 25.08.2023, but no charges have been framed as of the date of the judgment. The Court also noted that the trial court’s report indicated that the matter is still at the stage of appearance and that the next date for appearance is 06.08.2026.
The Court held that the applicants have been incarcerated for nearly three years without the framing of charges or commencement of trial. The Court emphasized that the principle of parity applies, as six other accused have been granted bail. The Court also noted that the seriousness of the offence alone cannot negate the grant of bail, especially when the trial is not likely to commence in the near future.
"Taking above material into consideration, it is clear that there are no immediate prospects of framing charge or commencement of trial. As stated above, out of 9 accused, 6 are already granted bail. Therefore, applications of present both applicants deserve to be allowed on the ground of parity as well as on the ground of long incarceration."
The Verdict
The Court allowed both bail applications. The applicants, Vikas Kamble and Harshawardhan Lohkar, were directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.122 of 2023, on executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety in the like amount. The conditions imposed included:
- The applicants shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.
- The applicants shall not enter Nanded District, except for attending the trial.
- The applicants shall furnish their mobile phone numbers and address to the Investigating Officer.
The Court directed that the bail applications be disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parity Principle in Bail Jurisprudence
- The principle of parity is a well-established doctrine in bail jurisprudence. Courts routinely grant bail to co-accused if others similarly situated have been granted bail, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.
- This judgment reinforces the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial is a significant factor in granting bail, even in serious offences.
Long Incarceration Without Trial
- Courts must consider the duration of incarceration without trial as a critical factor in bail applications.
- The judgment underscores that the absence of charges or the commencement of trial does not justify indefinite incarceration, especially when other co-accused have been granted bail.
Role of Trial Courts in Expediting Proceedings
- Trial courts must ensure that cases are disposed of expeditiously, especially in cases where accused persons are incarcerated for prolonged periods without trial.
- The judgment highlights the need for trial courts to prioritize cases involving prolonged incarceration to avoid injustice.
Conditions for Bail in Serious Offences
- Even in serious offences, bail can be granted if the accused persons are not likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- Courts must impose stringent conditions to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial and to prevent any obstruction of justice.
