The principle of parity allows bail to co-accused similarly situated when one is granted bail, supported by the length of pre-trial incarceration.

ORDER :

1. Issue notice to the respondent.

2. Mr. Aaditya Pande, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent.

3. Leave granted.

4. This appeal challenges the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Bail Application No.3751 of 2024.

5. The appellant has been facing trial in connection with a crime registered pursuant to FIR No. 306 of 2024 dated 19.05.2024 lodged with Police Station Yerwada, District Pune City in respect of offences punishable under Sections 304 , 279, 337, 338, 427, 120-B, 209, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, " IPC ") and Sections 7 , 7-A, 8, 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, "PC Act") and Sections 184 , 185, 199/177, 3(1)/180, 5, 171, 119 and 199/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "MV Act"). The application seeking bail having been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 16.12.2025, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

6. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and learned standing counsel for the respondent(s)-State.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant in this case is similarly placed with the appellant in Crl.A.No.629 of 2026 (Amar Santosh Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra) who was granted relief of bail vide order dated 02.02.2026. Therefore, on the principle of parity, this appellant also may be granted a similar relief as the appellant herein has also been in jail for about twenty months.

8. Learned standing counsel for the respondent- State submitted that indeed in the order dated 02.02.2026, relief has been granted to one of the co- accused. In the circumstances, appropriate orders may be made in this appeal.

9. Therefore, following our order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Crl.A.NO.627 of 2026 ( Ashish Satish Mittal vs. State of Maharashtra ) and particularly, following the relief granted to the appellant in Crl.A.NO.629 of 2026 (Amar Santosh Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra), we allow this appeal and direct as under:

“Considering the facts on record and the aforesaid submissions, in our view, the case for bail is made out.”

10. We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:

The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court as early as possible and the Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings arising out of FIR No.306 of 2024 mentioned above.

11. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the trial of the instant case.

12. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

13. The appellant shall not make any attempt to contact the witnesses either directly or indirectly.

14. Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the appellant.

15. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.