1/6 14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 878 OF 2026 Gautam Nilaka @ Nelkya Kale …...Applicant VERSUS. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. …...Respondents ----- Mr. Gaurav Kalekar (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Ganesh Khatkale, for Applicant. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kalekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Avinash A. Naik, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State. 2. By this Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the Applicant seeks Regular Bail in respect of C.R. No. 582 of 2025, registered at Malshiras Police Station, Solapur, for offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 331(6), 332(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”). Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.09.22 20:48:13 +0530 2/6 14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC 3. Mr. Gaurav Kalekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that there are three (3) Accused in Crime No.582 of 2025. The Applicant is Accused No.2. He states that Crime No.582 of 2025 is registered as Sessions Case No.5 of 2026 and is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras (“Trial Court”). 4. The prosecution case is that the Accused in C.R. No.582 of 2025 committed robbery on 05.11.2025. In the said robbery, the Accused took the Informant’s gold. The Informant in C.R. No.582 of 2025, where the offences of robbery and house trespass were committed, is 85 years of age and resides with his aged wife. Taking advantage of the age and helplessness of the senior citizens, the Accused committed robbery of the following articles, which are referred in the FIR: 1‐ 90]000@&# fdaerhps nksu rksGk otukph ,d lksU;kph pSu tq‐ok‐ fda‐ v‐ 2‐ 13]000@&# fdaerhps ,d eaxGlq=kpk rhu xzWaepk rqdMk tq‐ok‐ fda‐ v‐ 3‐ 9000@&# eksgu ekGspk nksu xzWaepk lksU;kpk rqdMk tq‐ok‐ fda‐ v‐ 4‐ 13]0000@&# lksU;kph dkukrhy rhu xzWaepk fjax tq‐ok‐ fda‐ v‐ ,dqu 1]25]000@&# ;s.ks] izek.ks ofjy o.kZukps o fdaerhps lksU;kps nkxhu‐s 5. The Applicant was arrested on 07.11.2025. The Bail Application filed by the Applicant at Exhibit-4 in Sessions Case No.5 of 2026 was rejected by the Trial Court on 27.03.2026. Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/6 14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC 6. Mr. Gaurav Kalekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that the allegations against the Applicant (Accused No.2) are similar to those against Accused No.1 – Sagar Laxman Kharat. He submits that the other two Accused have been released on bail. He therefore seeks bail on the ground of parity. He further submits that the Applicant is implicated in the crime solely on the basis of the recovery of two gold ornaments from the Applicant. He further submits that apart from this recovery, there is no other material to implicate the Applicant in C.R. No.582 of 2025. 7. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State, states that the Applicant is a habitual offender with several criminal antecedents identical to the offence which is the subject matter of Crime No. 582 of 2025. He further submits that two senior citizens were targeted by the Accused in the crime. He refers to the order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Trial Court on Exhibit-4 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2026, wherein the Trial Court observed that the accused, like the Applicant, operate by targeting vulnerable citizens. He therefore opposes this application. 8. Perused the record. 9. The criminal antecedents of the Applicant are as follows: Sr. No. Police Station C.R. No. Sections Session Case No. 1. Malshiras Tal – 69 of 2016 Section 380, - Shantanu S. Dhudum 4/6 14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC Malshiras, District Solapur. 34 of the IPC 2. Malshiras Tal – Malshiras, District Solapur. 205 of 2019 380 of the IPC - 3. Malshiras Tal – Malshiras, District Solapur. 167 of 2023 324f, 504 of the IPC - 4. Akluj, Tal-Malshiras, District Solapur 90 of 2017 457, 380, 34 of the IPC - 5. Akluj, Tal-Malshiras, District Solapur 238 of 2017 457, 380, 34 of the IPC - 6. Akluj, Tal-Malshiras, District Solapur 284 OF 2017 457, 380, 34 of the IPC - 7. Akluj, Tal-Malshiras, District Solapur 296 OF 2017 307, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC - 8. Pandharpur Tal- Pandharpur, District Solapur 150 of 2018 394, 363, 337, 338, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC. - 10. A perusal of the above-referred chart of criminal cases indicates that the Applicant is involved in identical offences. Mr. Gaurav Kalekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, does not dispute the Applicant's antecedents referred to above. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State, is justified in contending that the Applicant is a habitual offender and for that matter, a history sheeter. The Shantanu S. Dhudum 5/6 14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC crimes involved are not minor offences and are of serious nature, carrying punishment that may extend to ten years. 11. The victims in Crime No. 582 of 2025 are senior citizens who were targeted by the Applicant and the other Accused. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P1 , in paragraph No. 15, has observed as follows: “15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightning having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.” 13. The other two Accused in the crime, who have been released on bail, apparently have no criminal antecedents. The material placed on record in the file of this Application is sufficient to demonstrate 1 (2016) 15 SCC 422 Shantanu S. Dhudum 6/6 14-BA-878-2026 (CR).DOC distinguishing circumstances that would warrant a different view in the case of the Applicant. 14. The allegations in the case are that the Informant was assaulted by the Accused, his gold chain and his wife’s mangalsutra were snatched and she was dragged from the chair. 15. In view of the above, having regard to the nature of the allegations against the Applicant, the recovery of gold ornaments at the Applicant's instance and the Applicant's criminal antecedents, a strong case against the Applicant is made out. Accordingly, this Application is rejected. 16. Criminal Bail Application No.878 of 2026 is disposed of. ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum