24.BA.3566.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3566 OF 2026 Abhishekh @ Abhi Ramesh Tambe .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Vivek Arote a/w. Mr. Harish Garde, Advocates for Applicant.  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Arote, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State. 2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.464 of 2023 registered with Yerwada Police Station, District Pune for offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’); Section 4(25) of the Arms Act; Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act; Sections 3 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control or Organized Crime Act, 1999. The First Information Report is filed on 05.07.2023 and Applicant came to be arrested on 05.07.2023. 1 of 5 24.BA.3566.2026.doc 3. The role of Applicant in the present case is prima facie clear from the prosecution case that he and the other co-accused person Akshay Navgire had held the injured victim and a blow with the sickle (dks;rk) having been given by the other co-accused namely Prajwal Shinde which is explicitly clear. 4. Mr. Arote draws attention of the Court to the fact that the other co-accused person Akshay Navgire having a similar role is infact exonerated and discharged from the crime and Prajwal Shinde who had actually inflicted the blow with the weapon has been enlarged on bail. In that view of the matter and the fact that Applicant has been incarcerated for three years persuades me to consider the Application for grant of bail on parity and long incarceration. 5. The learned APP, Mr. Karmarkar has vehemently objected to the Application being considered for bail and would submit and argue that notwithstanding the externment order which was passed against Applicant, he still entered into Pune city and participated in committing the crime in question and assisting in commission of the present crime. He would therefore submit that considering his antecedents, this Court should not grant him bail and allow the prosecution to file Affidavit-in-Reply. Affidavit-in-Reply is undoubtedly required to be filed in matters concerning special Acts, however, it is not ipso facto that in each and every matter on the say of the 2 of 5 24.BA.3566.2026.doc prosecution, Affidavit-in-Reply can be allowed to be filed. Bail mattes are not to be treated as a civil matters. It is prima facie seen that Applicant is incarcerated for more than three years. The trial is yet to begin. The ignominy of the trial not commencing and also not concluding in the near foreseeable future is writ large on the face of record. That itself coupled with the fact that charge has also not been framed and most importantly the ground of parity persuades me to consider the case of Applicant for grant of bail. Applicant is therefore released on bail. 6. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) Applicant – Abhishekh @ Abhi Ramesh Tambe is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with CR. No.464 of 2023; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at Yerwada Police Station, once every month, on the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 3 of 5 24.BA.3566.2026.doc until commencement of trial and thereafter shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court; (iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail; (v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current residential address and mobile telephone number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating Officer of any change in his residential address or mobile telephone number, as and when such change occurs; and (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the Applicant. 4 of 5 24.BA.3566.2026.doc 7. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made hereinabove in this order. 8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 5 of 5 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.22 20:51:46 +0530