Pawan Pradeep Sharma v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 492 OF 2026 Pawan Pradeep Sharma ...Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent.
..............
Mr. Bharat V. Bhatia a/w. Ms Kirti S. Kataria for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent/State. API Sachin Patre, Ulhasnagar Police Station is present. ..............
CORAM
:
N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE :
25.02.2026.
P.C. :
1.
This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 742 of 2025 registered at Ulhasnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 126(2), 118(1), 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharaitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
3.
According to the prosecution, on 1st August 2025 at about 5 pm, a quarrel took place between the deceased and his friend Sunny Mhetre on one side and the co-accused namely Rohit Pasi on the other side. It is alleged that on account of the said quarrel on the date of incident which took place on 2nd August 2025, the said co-accused Rohit Pasi and co-accused Pravin Ujjinwal, assaulted the deceased by knife and bamboo stick and committed his murder. It is alleged that the present applicant prevented 1/3
Sunny Mehtre, while he was trying to save the deceased from assault.
4.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent / State. 5.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that no specific overt-act is attributed to the applicant. On the contrary, the applicant and his brother who is also co-accused were trying to save the deceased from the assault. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the transcription of CCTV footage collected during the investigation. It is submitted that the applicant is an Engineer. It is submitted that nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the applicant and therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. It is further submitted that the prosecution has already filed the charge-sheet against the co-accused. 6.
On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State submits that the applicant is involved in serious crime of murder. It is submitted that statement of witness Sunny Mhetre shows that when he was trying to save the deceased from assault, the present applicant and his brother prevented him from doing so. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.
2/3
7.
I have perused the transcription of the CCTV footage. Prima facie, there appears to be substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. No overt-act is attributed to the applicant. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order is passed.
ORDER
A) The Application is allowed.
B) In the event of arrest of the applicant in C.R. No. 742 of 2025 registered at Ulhasnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 126(2), 118(1), 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharaitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, he be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety or two sureties in the like amount.
C) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate in the further investigation, if any. D) The applicant shall not commit any other crime. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] 3/3