BA/3947/2026 of LALIT VIJAY VAITY Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR on 19 October 2026

1. Heard Mr. Warang, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Phad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Khatib, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.77 of 2026 registered with Lonavala Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 109, 117(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 189(2), 191(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The Applicant is one of the five accused persons in the present crime. A group of 40 members of the same family went on a holiday to Lonavala from Mumbai and stayed there for about two to

three days in a Resort. On the last day, a skirmish broke out between the parties over the food served in view of their package which was booked and an altercation took place. According to the prosecution case, members of the family got enraged during the altercation, leading to a scuffle that resulted in injuries to a staff member working in the kitchen of the resort. The injury caused was grievous in nature. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the First Informant - Complainant, the said injury ruptured his urinary bladder. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Khatib that this Court should not consider granting bail to the Applicant who was part of the gang which created the ruckus with the kitchen staff and destroyed the Resort furniture. According to the prosecution case, the weapons used were chairs, rather plastic chairs at the resort by the family members when the scuffle took place. It is primarily seen that the quarrel erupted on account of the food supplement which was prepared by the kitchen staff for the said visitors. The Applicant is a young offender. By virtue of granting bail, the Court does not exonerate the Applicant. A common perception is seen in this Court for vehemently opposing bail Applications as if by virtue of granting bail, the Court is exonerating the Applicant. This is not so. The record primarily shows that after the initial scuffle took place with regard to the incident in question, the matter was in fact settled by the parties and only thereafter the entire 40 member troupe had left the resort. The Applicant has been

incarcerated for more than 5 months. He is a young entrepreneur. Incident in question is not premeditated or planned in any manner.

4. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and findings, Bail Application of Applicant is granted bail subject to the following terms and conditions:-

(i) Applicant – Lalit Vijay Vaity is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with CR. No.77 of 2026;

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount;

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at Lonavala Rural Police Station, once every month, on the first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 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.

5. 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.

6. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay