Grant of bail based on the principle of parity when co-accused in similar circumstances have already been granted bail by the court.

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.3809 of 2024.

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

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

R DA atD eH : 2A 0 S 26H .A 02R .M 27A

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, "PC

18:55:49 IST

Reason:

1

Act") and Sections 184, 185, 199/177, 3(1)/180, 5(1)/181, and 199(a) 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.

By order dated 10.02.2026, this Court issued notice in the instant matter.

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

Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is a Doctor, practicing at Sassoon Hospital, Pune; that the appellant in fact was on leave on the relevant day however, the allegations of offences have been made as against the appellant herein.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant in this case is similarly placed with the appellants in Crl.A.No. 627 of 2026 ( Ashish Satish Mittal vs. State of Maharashtra ) who was granted relief of bail vide order dated 02.02.2026; and SLP(Crl.) No.2049/2026 ( Arun Kumar Devnath Singh vs. State of Maharashtra ) who was granted relief of bail vide order dated 05.02.2026.

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-one months.

Per contra, 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. Learned standing counsel for the respondent-State with reference to the counter affidavit contended that although the appellant may not have been on duty on the relevant day the fact remains that he is also a co-conspirator and hence the allegations as against appellant are justified. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed.

We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar. We 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.”

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

The appellant shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

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

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

The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.