Exclusion From Education Due To Incarceration Is Added Layer Of Punishment: Bombay HC Grants Bail To 18-Yr-Old MCOCA Accused
The Bombay High Court allowed the Bail Application of a Student under Section 439 of the CrPC.

The Bombay High Court granted bail to an 18-year-old accused under MCOCA while holding that exclusion from education due to incarceration is an added layer of punishment for an offender undergoing studies.
The Court allowed the Bail Application of a student under Section 439 of the CrPC accused under Sections 394 and 34 of the IPC, Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
A Single Bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav held, “It should also be noted that in a case where an offender is undergoing studies, his exclusion from education for a period of time is an added layer of punishment over and above what a non-student accused may be subjected to. This is because a student undergoing incarceration suffers loss of precious academic time which cannot be bartered for any wealth in the world.”
Advocate Jatan Singh represented the Applicant, while APP Mahalakshmi Ganapathy appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The First Informant was accosted and assaulted by four persons. According to the FIR, the assailants used a knuckle fighter to attack him, snatching his mobile phone and cash. The police patrolling van arrived during the commotion, causing the assailants to flee. The Applicant was apprehended by the police after a chase.
Two Traffic Police Constables, who were eyewitnesses to the incident, stated that they saw four persons assaulting the First Informant, though the FIR mentioned only three. The Applicant, aged 18 years and 4 months at the time of arrest, was a Second Year Junior College (SYJC) student at Satish Pradhan Dnyanasadhana College.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court referred to the Delhi High Court Judgment in Siddharth Jain v. Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies (2015), which held that young offenders should not be deprived of educational opportunities due to legal proceedings.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's Judgment in Ishar Das v. State of Punjab (1973) which emphasised that young offenders should be given a chance for reformation rather than incarceration.
The Court noted that the applicant had no prior antecedents and was at the threshold of adulthood, and prolonged detention could push him into a "vicious cycle and downward spiral of criminality."
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the above despite vehement objection raised by Ms. Ganapathy, learned APP to consider the antecedents of the coaccused, I am inclined to grant bail to the Applicant before me in order to ensure that an opportunity is given to the Applicant to take admission in 12th standard on his release from prison in the next academic year and continue his education. If Applicant is released from jail the avenue will be open for him to take admission in 12th standard in forthcoming academic year 2025-2026.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Bail Application.
Cause Title: Avinash Ajay Benewal v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:4886)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocate Ganesh Gole and Ateet Shirodkar
Respondent: APP Mahalakshmi Ganapathy