MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1579 OF 2026 Sanjay Kashiram Mohite …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala a/w Adv. Pradyumna Agrawal, Adv. Anshu Agrawal & Adv. Bhushan Shinde, for the Applicant. Mr. Mahesh Mule, SPP a/w Adv.Prathamesh Bhosale and Mr. T. G. Khan, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with MCOC Special Case No.1322 of 2021, pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge under MCOC Act, Greater Mumbai. Said case arising out of an FIR bearing Crime No.286 of 2021, registered with Dadar Railway Police Station, Mumbai Railway for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 385, 387, 392, 195-A, 212, 224, 420, 506(ii), 507 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act”), Sections 30 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and Sections 37(1)(3) r/w 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, on the Report dated 7th April, 2021 lodged by first informant. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 7th April, 2021, at about 14.45 hours, at Dadar Railway Station, Accused No.1, leader of the organized gang syndicate demanded extortion money Rs.3,500/- WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2026.09.03 13:20:16 +0530 MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC from the informant. As the informant did not pay that amount, A1 snatched 1150 mask worth of Rs.7475/-, which the informant was carrying for the purpose of sale. Therefore, the informant lodged the Report. Initially, the aforesaid crime was registered under Sections 387 and 392 of IPC against A1. Thereafter, A1 absconded. Meanwhile, certain accused persons threatened the informant to compel him to withdraw his report complaint but he did not. It is alleged that, the applicant had filed the written representation with Dadar Railway Police Station on the letter head of Bahujan Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union, in the capacity of its General Secretary, falsely claiming that A1 was innocent and the Report of the informant was false. Thus, the applicant tried to protect A1 from the legal action in this case. Additionally, the applicant had assured the A1 and his wife-A4, that he would lead a march through their union, claiming that A1 was innocent. It is alleged that, the applicant received certain amount from A1, to protect him and his wife-A4, from the legal action. Therefore, the Applicant was arrested, whereafter, he was granted bail. However, on invocation of the MCOC offence, the applicant came to be re-arrested by the police. His bail application came to be rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this application. 4. Ms. Ganediwala, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the role played by the applicant and the A2 – Sameer Lalzare was similar. A2 has three criminal antecedents of bodily offence as submitted by learned SPP, Mr. Mule. However, the A2 is released on bail by this Court. Said Order is not assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for cancellation. The applicant is behind bars for last more than 5 years. He has no criminal MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC antecedents. Therefore, she urged to grant the bail on the principle of parity. 5. Opposing these submissions, Mr. Mule, the learned SPP has submitted that the applicant had tried to protect A1 and his wife A4 from the legal action and for that purpose he had filed the false representation with the police claiming A1’s innocence. Additionally, the applicant received certain money from A1, to protect the couple from the legal action. Therefore, bail be refused. 6. I have considered these submissions. It is a matter of record that, initially, the applicant was released on bail and, on invocation of the MCOC offence, he was re-arrested. Since then the applicant is in jail. Mr. Mule, the learned SPP submitted that after filing of the charge-sheet, all the accused persons tried to protract the trial and therefore, the trial could not be advanced. However, meanwhile, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. The contention that the accused were delaying the trial is accepted by this Court while rejecting the Bail Application No.3809 of 2025 filed by A7 - Vikram Vijay Bhutekar. However, said Accused – Vikram Bhutekar has been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as he was in custody for a period of about five years and, out of 50 witnesses, only five were examined. Said A7 has 10 criminal antecedents and the present applicant has none. Insofar as the period of incarceration is concerned, the applicant has suffered more period in jail than said A7. 7. In the wake of above and having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant deserves to be released on bail on the principle of parity. Hence, following Order:- MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC (i) Applicant – Sanjay Kashiram Mohite shall be released on bail with MCOC Special Case No.1322 of 2021, pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge under MCOC Act Greater Mumbai arising out of an FIR bearing Crime No.286 of 2021 registered with Dadar Railway Police Station, Mumbai Railway on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Dadar Railway Police Station, Mumbai Railway on the 1st day of each calendar month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., till the conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. (iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing against him. (v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for which he has been arraigned in this case. MANOJ 901-BA-1579-2026.DOC (vii) In case of breach of any of the conditions, the Respondent-State will be at liberty to approach the trial Court for cancellation of bail. (viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the out come of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)