Pratik Gajanan Sharma v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Nandura Dist. Buldhana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.1280/2025 (Pratik Gajanan Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Nandura, District Buldhana) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 10.12.2025.
The applicant is arrested in Crime No.236/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 470, 471, 477(1), 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 43(B), 65, 66(B), 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Gambling Act.
2.
The applicant along with other 12 co-accused has committed misappropriation of funds in the bank. The applicant is the Computer Operator and the crime is registered against all the co-accused along with this accused regarding siphoning of huge amount of more than Rs.5 Cores.
3.
The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that the applicant has filed this application on the basis of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court while granting bail to the co-accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the applicant is in jail since 1 year, investigation is completed, charge sheet is filed, it will take time to examine the witnesses, further incarceration of the applicant is not required and granted bail to the co-accused. The application of the
co-accused was rejected by this Court. The another co-accused has applied before the trial Court on the basis of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and while granting bail to said co-accused, Court has observed that the bulky charge sheet is filed, 111 witnesses are there and it will take time and has granted bail to said co-accused. The applicant has stated that the same observations are applicable to this applicant as the allegations are same, the crime is same, it will take time, applicant is in jail since 1 year and 9 months. On the parity of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the trial Court, the applicant has filed this application.
4.
The learned Advocate for the applicant has not argued the case on the merits. The applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virender Kumar Yadav V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2016) 14 SCC 99 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail in the economic offence when there is a fraud of huge amount. The applicant has relied on the observations in the case of Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin V/s. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No.4144/2024) wherein the direction is given to the High Court not to time bound the matters and burden the trial Court. Reliance is also placed on the observations in the case of Parmesh Arora V/s. U.T. Chandigarh (Criminal Appeal No.4872/2025) wherein though some of witnesses were already examined, the Court has released the applicant on bail. He has also relied on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Application (BA) No.414/2024 Vivek Tejram Chawre V/s. State of Maharashtra)
wherein after the completion of charge sheet, bail was granted by the Court. Hence, prayed to release the applicant on bail. 4.
The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that the offence is registered against this applicant only. He is the main culprit. The applicant is a Computer Operator and he has used all the amount in betting. The parity of the observations made while granting bail to other accused is not available to this applicant as the role of this applicant is different from them. He has relied on the judgment in the case of Sagar V/s. State of UP and another wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the ground of parity does not apply to all the accused person in said crime and the parity will be applicable only after considering the role. He has also relied in the case of Milind Satish Sawant V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Bail Application No.1175/2025) wherein the observations are made about the offence under Section 409.
5.
Heard both sides, perused the record and considered the judgments cited by the parties.
6.
The applicant has filed this application on the ground of parity of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to other accused persons. While granting bail to the co-accused, which was rejected by this Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the appellant is under incarceration for more than 2 years and the charge sheet is already been filed, the custody of the appellant is no longer required. On the same ground, the trial Court has also released the other co-accused. Though the role of this applicant is different, the learned Advocate for the applicant has not argued the matter on merits. It appears that the charge sheet is filed
and the investigation is completed, it will take time to examine 111 witnesses as the charge sheet is bulky and on similar grounds the trial Court has granted bail to the other co-accused, the applicant who is in jail since 1 year and 9 months, is entitled for bail. i) Applicant - Pratik Gajanan Sharma be released on bail in Crime No.236/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 470, 471, 477(1), 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 43(B), 65, 66(B), 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Gambling Act, on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with solvent surety in the like amount before the trial Court.
ii) The applicant shall not in any way tamper with the prosecution evidence.
iii) The applicant shall not pressurize or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
iv) The applicant shall co-operate with the learned trial Judge in the conduct of the trial.
7.
The Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. (MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 11/12/2025 18:44:15