The Bombay High Court has affirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention without compelling grounds, especially when investigation is complete and co-accused are released, violates the presumption of innocence. This decision reinforces the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly for first-time offenders in non-heinous offences.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Ismile Yakub Khan, is accused as Accused No. 2 in Crime No. 269 of 2025, registered at MIDC Sinnar Police Station, for offences under Sections 334(1), 305, 324(4), and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The case arises from the theft of copper wire from the testing lab godown of Hind Rectifiers Limited on 11.09.2025. The theft was detected through CCTV footage, leading to the apprehension of eight individuals, including the applicant.
Key Facts
- The stolen copper wire was recovered from the applicant’s tempo, which was also seized by the Investigating Officer.
- The applicant has no prior criminal antecedents.
- The applicant was arrested on 30.11.2025 and has remained in custody since then.
- A prior bail application (Bail Application No. 577 of 2025) was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road, on 21.02.2025.
- The charge sheet has been filed and the investigation is complete.
- The applicant’s co-accused, Sunil Raghunath Sonar, was granted bail by this Court on 02.04.2026 under identical circumstances.
- The applicant is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh.
Procedural History
- 11.09.2025: Theft of copper wire reported at Hind Rectifiers Limited, MIDC Sinnar.
- 30.11.2025: Applicant arrested and taken into custody.
- 21.02.2025: First bail application rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road.
- 02.04.2026: Co-accused Sunil Raghunath Sonar granted bail by Bombay High Court.
- 01.07.2026: Present bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Parties' Positions
Applicant’s Position: The applicant’s detention of over eight months is unjustified as the investigation is complete, the charge sheet filed, and no further recoveries are expected. He has no criminal history and will comply with any conditions imposed. Parity with his co-accused, who was granted bail, must be maintained.
State’s Position: The State acknowledges the investigation is complete but opposes bail on the ground that the applicant is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh, raising concerns about potential non-appearance. It seeks a condition requiring regular reporting to the Investigating Officer.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks regular bail in Crime No. 269 of 2025, with conditions to ensure his appearance and non-interference with the trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether regular bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 when the investigation is complete, the accused has no antecedents, and a co-accused in the same case has already been released on bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Mr. Mihir Kasliwal submitted that the applicant’s prolonged detention without trial is disproportionate. He emphasized the absence of criminal antecedents, completion of investigation, and filing of the charge sheet. He relied on the principle of parity, citing the grant of bail to co-accused Sunil Raghunath Sonar on 02.04.2026, arguing that denying bail to the applicant on identical facts violates Article 14 of the Constitution. He assured full compliance with any conditions.
For the Respondent/State
Mr. Y. M. Nakhawa, APP, conceded that the investigation was complete and no further recoveries were pending. However, he opposed unconditional bail, citing the applicant’s residence in Uttar Pradesh as a risk to trial attendance. He requested a condition mandating monthly reporting to the MIDC Sinnar Police Station until charge framing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over eight months without trial, and the investigation is complete. The recovery of stolen property from the applicant’s vehicle, while incriminating, does not elevate the case to one of exceptional gravity warranting continued incarceration. The Court noted that the applicant has no prior criminal record and that the co-accused, facing identical charges and circumstances, was granted bail on 02.04.2026.
"The principle of parity in bail matters is not a mere formality but a constitutional imperative under Article 14, especially where the facts and circumstances are substantially identical."
The Court held that the State’s concern regarding the applicant’s residence in Uttar Pradesh is not sufficient to deny bail outright, particularly when appropriate conditions can mitigate the risk of non-appearance. The Court rejected the notion that residence outside Maharashtra automatically justifies denial of bail, emphasizing that conditions can be tailored to ensure compliance.
The Court further noted that the offences under BNS, while serious, are not of a nature that inherently demands pre-trial incarceration, especially where the accused is not a flight risk and the evidence is already secured.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail on the following conditions: (a) Furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties in the same amount; (b) No tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses; (c) Submission of residential proof and contact details within three days of release; (d) Monthly reporting to the MIDC Sinnar Police Station from the 15th of each month, between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., until the framing of charges, and on any other day as directed by the Investigating Officer. The applicant is to be released upon compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parity in Bail Grants Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must cite identical bail grants to co-accused as a decisive factor in bail applications.
- Courts cannot deny bail to one accused while granting it to another under the same facts without reasoned distinction.
Residence Alone Cannot Justify Denial
- A person’s permanent residence outside the state does not, by itself, constitute a ground to refuse bail.
- Conditions such as monthly reporting, surety requirements, and surrender of travel documents are sufficient safeguards.
Completion of Investigation Triggers Bail Entitlement
- Once the charge sheet is filed and no further recoveries or investigations are pending, continued custody becomes prima facie unjustified.
- Courts must prioritize the right to liberty under Article 21 when pre-trial detention exceeds reasonable duration without trial.
No Antecedents = Stronger Claim to Bail
- First-time offenders in non-violent property offences are entitled to bail as a matter of course, absent exceptional circumstances.
- The burden shifts to the State to justify continued detention, not to the accused to prove innocence.
Procedural Compliance Is Key
- Applicants must clearly demonstrate completion of investigation, absence of antecedents, and parity with co-accused.
- Drafting bail applications should include a table comparing facts of applicant and co-accused granted bail for maximum persuasive effect.
