Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 March, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S).2932 OF 2026)
VISHAL SURENDRAKUMAR AGARWAL APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT
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.2733 of 2025.
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 Act“) and Sections 184, 185, 199/177, 3(1)/180,
5(1)/181 and 199(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
(in short, “MV Act“). The application seeking bail
Date: 2026.03.10
18:16:12 IST
Reason:
having been rejected by the High Court vide impugned
1
order dated 16.12.2025, the appellant has preferred
the instant appeal.
Vide order dated 26.02.2026, this Court issued
notice in the instant matter.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant in
support of the appeal and learned standing counsel
for the respondent-State.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that the appellant herein is the
father of the minor boy who was driving the car on
the fateful day despite a driver being provided;
that the allegations which have been levelled as
against the appellant herein are not true at all;
that with regard to the other accused this Court has
granted the relief of bail; the appellant herein is
also similarly situated inasmuch as he has also
completed twenty two months of incarceration. In the
circumstances, the appellant herein also may be
granted the relief of bail subject to the terms and
conditions to be imposed.
In this regard, the order passed by this Court
in the connected appeals viz., Crl.A.No.627, 628 and
629 of 2026 dated 02.02.2026; Crl.A.NO.973 of 2026
dated 18.02.2026; and Crl.A.No.1177 of 2026 dated
27.02.2026 have been brought to our notice.
2
Per contra, learned standing counsel for the
respondent-State with reference to the counter
affidavit contended that the allegations against the
appellant herein are serious; that there is no
parity between the appellant-accused and the accused
in the other cases wherein this Court had granted
the relief of bail inasmuch as the appellant herein
is the father of the child, who drove the vehicle on
the fateful day leading to the death of two innocent
persons on the road. He contended that attempts were
made by the appellant and the other accused to
ensure that evidence in the instant case is not only
suppressed, but also was wholly substituted inasmuch
as the attempts were made to substitute the blood
samples of the appellant’s son and his friends who
were sitting in the backseat of the car. The
allegations being serious as against the appellant
herein, this Court may not grant the relief as
sought for by the appellant as it would jeopardize
and frustrate the investigation as well as the
trial.
In the circumstances, learned standing counsel
for the respondent contended that there is no merit
in this appeal and the same may be dismissed.
We have considered the arguments advanced at
3
the bar in light of the material on record as well
as the fact that in similar cases, this Court had
already granted the relief of bail to the other co-
accused viz., Crl.A.No.627, 628 and 629 of 2026
dated 02.02.2026; Crl.A.NO.973 of 2026 dated
18.02.2026; and Crl.A.No.1177 of 2026 dated
27.02.2026. We also note that the appellant herein
has been in jail for the last twenty two months. In
the circumstances, we find that the appellant has
made out a case for bail.
We, therefore, 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
4
contact the witnesses either directly or indirectly.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of this case, we direct that the appellant shall in
no way cause any frustration or delay in the trial.
We also direct the concerned Trial Court to
endeavour to conclude the proceedings at the
earliest.
Any infraction of the conditions may entail
cancellation of bail granted to the appellant.
With these observations, the appeal is
allowed.
………………………………………………………, J
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)…………………………………………………………, J
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI
MARCH 10, 20265
6
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-AS U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S).
2932/2026[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16-
12-2025 IN BA NO. 2733/2025 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY]VISHAL SURENDRAKUMAR AGARWAL PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)
IA NO. 52433/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA NO. 52434/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA NO. 52435/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURESDate : 10-03-2026 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. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prashant Patil, Adv.
Mr. Shakti Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Patil, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Arora, Adv.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Wadhwa, Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Karan Dhalla, Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv.
Mr. Sagar Pahune Patil, AOR
Ms. Devanshi Popat, Adv.
Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Sabir Kachhi, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv.
Ms. Shasya Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv.
7
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manan Verma, AOR
Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Tandon, Adv.
Ms. Mansi Diwakar, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
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 RLeave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order,
which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)8
