IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NEELA GOKHALE, J.
Sunil @ Satya Shantaram Dalvi and Ors. – Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. – Respondents
Bail Application No.3792 of 2025
Decided On : 23-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. previous bail application was rejected. (Para 3) |
| 3. applicants' counsel argues for bail on grounds of parity and long incarceration. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. prosecution presents evidence against applicants' bail request. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court reviews previous bail decisions relevant to applicants. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. sufficient evidence linked to applicants; disallows parity argument. (Para 10 , 15) |
| 7. court affirms limitations on applying principle of parity. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 8. balancing individual liberty with societal interest in justice. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. application is dismissed; cbi directed for timely investigations. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
NEELA GOKHALE, J.
1. The Applicants seek their release on bail in connection with C.R. No.I- 76 of 2020, dated 17th April 2020 and C.R. No.I- 77 of 2020, dated 18th April 2020, registered with the Kasa Police Station, Palghar, for the offence punishable under Section 3 07 , 353, 332, 333, 341, 427, 147, 148 and 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (‘IPC’) and and 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Thereafter, Sections 3 02 , 120B, 109, 117, 143, 144, 145, 152, 153, 188, 201, 269, 270, 271, 290, 342 and 505(2) read with 4 of the IPC and Sections 5 1(B), 52 and 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Sections 2 , 3, 4 and 5 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 and Sections 135 read with 7 (1) and (3) of the MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT , 1951 were applied. Upon investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against 126 persons including the present Applicants. Initially, the investigation was conducted by the officers of Kasa Police Station and thereafter, it was transferred to the State Crime Branch. Mr. Munde, learned Spl. PP, has informed that the investigation was recently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') on 8th August 2025 and by way of an amendment, the CBI is impleaded as Respondent No.2 in the present Application.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that while a lockdown was ordered and enforced in Palghar district on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, on 14th April, 2020, at around 10:00 pm to 10:30 pm, a group of villagers attacked a private vehicle namely, a white Eeco car. There were three passengers inside the car. The police station received a call reporting that a mob of about 400 to 500 villagers had assembled in Gadchinche, and had overturned the said Eeco car. The passengers were trapped inside. The three persons pleaded with the main assailants in the mob that they were proceeding for a funeral of their guru. However, the villagers were convinced that these passengers were thieves, abducting children from the village. The mob assaulted these three people, with wooden sticks, rods, and stones. The mob was violent and were even pelting stones at the police van which had come to rescue the persons being assaulted. The incident took a serious turn and the police were compelled to resort to firing in the air, in an attempt to disperse the crowd. The mob, even went to the extent of assaulting the policemen, in an attempt to restrain them from reaching the persons required to be saved. All three persons succumbed to their injuries. Ultimately, the main persons in the assault were identified and arrested. The FIR was registered. The present Applicants are stated to be active assailants in the incident. They were arrested in C.R No.I – 76 of 2020 on 22nd May 2020, and in C.R. No.I- 77 of 2020 on 08th May 2020, 09th May 2020 and 10th May 2020 respectively.
3. The Applicants filed an application seeking bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane; however, by order dated 2nd September 2025, the bail application was rejected. Hence, the Applicants have moved the present Application for the reliefs as prayed.
4. Mr. Sachin Pawar, learned counsel, appeared for the Applicants; Mr. Amit Munde, learned Sp. PP, appeared for the Respondent No.2- CBI and Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, learned





The principle of parity in bail applications requires careful consideration of each accused's role, and cannot be invoked where direct involvement and serious charges exist.
The principle of parity cannot be the sole basis for bail; serious evidence against the accused warrants denial of bail despite prolonged incarceration.
Point of law : discretion for grant of bail must be exercised cautiously while considering the bail petitions of the nature being dealt with.
The decision emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the process of justice when deciding on....
Under UA(P) Act Section 43D(5), bail denied if charge-sheet shows prima facie true accusations of terrorist gang involvement; custody/delay insufficient absent changed circumstances; parity only for ....
Bail under the U.A.P. Act requires prima facie assessment of allegations; long custody or parity with co-accused do not automatically justify release.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.