Sunil Arjun Sonavane v. The State Of Maharashtra

Ajit Pathrikar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2968 OF 2025 Sunil Arjun Sonavane ...Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Rajesh Khobragade a/w Lubdha Bhoir, G. Nayar and Raj Gupta, for the Applicant.

Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for the State-Respondent. Ms. Puja Yadav (through Legal Aid), for the Intervenor. PSI - G. S. Jadhwar, Tulinj Police Station, is present.

CORAM

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

DATED:

12th FEBRUARY 2026 PC:- 1.

The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with C.R. No. 149 of 2025 dated 3rd March 2025 registered with the Tulinj Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115, 351, 352, 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS').

2.

There are in all five accused. The present Applicant is Accused No.5.

3.

By order dated 14th October 2025, this Court had enlarged Accused No.3, Avdhesh Chauhan and Accused No.4, Sunitadevi Chauhan on bail on certain conditions. 4.

Heard Mr. Rajesh Khobragade, learned counsel for the Applicant, Ms. Poonam Bhosale, learned APP and Ms. Puja Yadav, learned counsel for the Intervenor, father of the deceased.

5.

Ms. Yadav has a grievance that one Vivek Verma, a neighbour of the accused persons, has harassed and tried to intimidate the Complainant and his family. The Complainant had given a complaint regarding the said intimidation to the Senior Police Inspector of Tulinj Police Station. It appears that no action was taken by Tulinj Police Station in that regard. However, Waliv Police Station has recorded an NCR in respect of the said complaint. It is incumbent on Tulinj Police Station to take necessary action in respect of the complaint made by the Complainant.

6.

Be that as it may, the role attributed to Accused Nos. 3 and 4 is identical to the role attributed to the present Applicant. The only allegation against the present Applicant, Sunil Sonavane, is that, being a neighbour, he heard the quarrel, came outside, intervened and in the process, hit Vivek and Saurabh with his hand, after which Saurabh and Vivek had gone away. In these circumstances, the role attributed to the Applicant is identical to that of the accused, who are already enlarged on bail.

7.

In view of the principle of parity, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail and it is ordered as under:

ORDER

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount;

ii) The Applicant shall attend the Police Station concerned, on first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and

12:00 p.m., till the charges are framed. He shall also attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date as directed, till the conclusion of the trial, save and except if the Applicant is exempted from appearance by orders of the Trial Court. iii) The present Applicant will not enter the jurisdiction of Tulinj Police Station till the evidence of the key witnesses are recorded.

iv) If the Applicant has not deposited his passport, the Applicant shall deposit the same with the concerned Police Station, if any;

v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without permission of the Trial Court;

vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station; viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial;

ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

8.

Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.

9.

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)