Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ajay Aniruddha Taware vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO(s).2290/2026)
DR. AJAY ANIRUDDHA TAWARE Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
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,
Signature Not Verified
“IPC“) and Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12, 13 of the
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.02.27
18:55:49 IST
Reason:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, “PC
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
2
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.
3
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.
4
Any infraction of the conditions shall entailcancellation of bail granted to the appellant.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)………………………………………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 27, 2026
5
ITEM NO.22 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). 2290/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-12-2025
in BA No. 3809/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay]DR. AJAY ANIRUDDHA TAWARE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 40971/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 40973/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)Date : 27-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sachin Jaysing Patil, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
Mr. Risvi Muhammed, Adv.
Ms. Vishnu Priya, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
For Respondent(s) 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.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Criminal Appeal is allowed and disposed of in
terms of the signed order.
6
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file).
7
