Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 882
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S).2932 OF 2026)
VISHAL SURENDRAKUMAR AGARWAL APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT
MARCH 10, 2026
………………………………………………………, J (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………, J (UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI MARCH 10, 2026
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 2932/2026 [ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16-12-2025 IN BA NO. 2733/2025 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY]
VISHAL SURENDRAKUMAR AGARWAL PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)
IA NO. 52433/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA NO. 52434/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA NO. 52435/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 10-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Patil, Adv. Mr. Shakti Pandey, Adv. Mr. Pranav Patil, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Arora, Adv. Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Karan Dhalla, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Sagar Pahune Patil, AOR Ms. Devanshi Popat, Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Sabir Kachhi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Shasya Singh, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Tandon, Adv. Ms. Mansi Diwakar, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Bail Application No.2733 of 2025.
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, 201, 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(1)/181 and 199(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
DBD1R S 8 O i i a e g g :t a1 R n i e t s6 a a :R o : l t 2 l 1 u A n y 02 r : e s 2 L I i 6 M S g N . n T0 o Ve 3 t dA. V 1 Lb e 0Ly r I ified ( h i a n v i n s g h o b r e t e , n " r M e V j e A c c t t e " d ) . by T t h h e e a H p i p g l h i c C a o t u i r o t n v s i e d e e k i i n m g p u b g a n i e l d
order dated 16.12.2025, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
Vide order dated 26.02.2026, this Court issued notice in the instant matter.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and learned standing counsel for the respondent-State.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is the father of the minor boy who was driving the car on the fateful day despite a driver being provided; that the allegations which have been levelled as against the appellant herein are not true at all; that with regard to the other accused this Court has granted the relief of bail; the appellant herein is also similarly situated inasmuch as he has also completed twenty two months of incarceration. In the circumstances, the appellant herein also may be granted the relief of bail subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed.
In this regard, the order passed by this Court in the connected appeals viz., Crl.A.No.627, 628 and 629 of 2026 dated 02.02.2026; Crl.A.NO.973 of 2026 dated 18.02.2026; and Crl.A.No.1177 of 2026 dated 27.02.2026 have been brought to our notice.
Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent-State with reference to the counter affidavit contended that the allegations against the appellant herein are serious; that there is no parity between the appellant-accused and the accused in the other cases wherein this Court had granted the relief of bail inasmuch as the appellant herein is the father of the child, who drove the vehicle on the fateful day leading to the death of two innocent persons on the road. He contended that attempts were made by the appellant and the other accused to ensure that evidence in the instant case is not only suppressed, but also was wholly substituted inasmuch as the attempts were made to substitute the blood samples of the appellant’s son and his friends who were sitting in the backseat of the car. The allegations being serious as against the appellant herein, this Court may not grant the relief as sought for by the appellant as it would jeopardize and frustrate the investigation as well as the trial.
In the circumstances, learned standing counsel for the respondent contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed.
We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the material on record as well as the fact that in similar cases, this Court had already granted the relief of bail to the other co-accused viz., Crl.A.No.627, 628 and 629 of 2026 dated 02.02.2026; Crl.A.NO.973 of 2026 dated 18.02.2026; and Crl.A.No.1177 of 2026 dated 27.02.2026. We also note that the appellant herein has been in jail for the last twenty two months. In the circumstances, we find that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
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 r
