SNEHAL ALIAS GAYATRI RAJESH BHOLEversusKIRAN MOTIRAM BHOLE AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:24527




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2026

                                Snehal Alias Gayatri Rajesh Bhole
                                            VERSUS
                                Kiran Motiram Bhole And Another

           Mr. S. S. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner
           Mr. G. G. Kadam, Advocate for respondent No. 1
           Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for respondent-State

                                               CORAM      : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                               DATE       : 22nd JUNE, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.          By consent of both sides heard finally at the stage of notice

           itself.


           2.          The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this

           Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

           2023 / Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of

           the impugned order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional

           Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.

           74/2026. The Sessions Court refused to cancel the regular bail of

           Respondent No. 1, granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon,

           by order dated 25.05.2026 under Exhibit 63 in Regular Criminal Case No.

           687/2015 for offenses punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 of

           the India Penal Code.




           21-Cri WP-825-2026.odt                                               1 of 5
3.          The    present   proceedings   arise   from   a   long-standing

matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her in laws. The

Petitioner filed a private criminal complaint R.C.C. No. 687/2015 against

her husband and in-laws in all total 5, Respondent No. 1 is her brother-

in-law i.e. accused No. 5. On 01.10.2015, the trial court issued process

against the accused for offenses under Section 406 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code, based on allegations that they misappropriated

32 Tolas of gold ornaments belonging to the Petitioner as Stridhan.


4.          Respondent No. 1, working in Sydney, Australia, failed to

appear before the trial court for several years. Consequently, the court

issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) on 12.12.2017, an absconder

proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. on

25.09.2023, and a Lookout Circular (LOC) on 08.09.2025. Respondent

No. 1 returned to India after passport clearance objections alerted him to

the outstanding coercive processes. Availing the liberty granted by the

Court, the respondent no. 1 surrendered before the Trial Court, Jalgaon,

seeking to recall the adverse orders and requesting regular bail. On

25.05.2026, the trial court set aside the non-bailable warrants and the

absconder proclamation, admitting him to regular bail. The Petitioner’s

subsequent application to cancel this bail was rejected by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, on 03.06.2026.


5.          The learned counsel for the Petitioner, argued that the lower


21-Cri WP-825-2026.odt                                                2 of 5
Courts committed a material perversity by granting bail to respondent

No. 1 who was a proclaimed offender and evaded the criminal trial for

nearly 11 years. He emphasized that immediately after securing bail, the

respondent applied for a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) to travel back

to Australia. According to the counsel, this behavior shows a clear flight

risk that will indefinitely delay the trial. Placing reliance upon Apex Court

judgment Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay RajGupta, 2026 SSC OnLine SC

211, that regular bail should not be mechanically granted to individuals

who deliberately evade the process of law.


6.          Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1

defended the orders impugned. He submitted that the petitioner

provided an incorrect address for the respondent in Bhosari, Pune,

despite his permanent residence is Savan Elegance, Plot No. 68,

Koparkhairane, New Mumbai, Thane and demonstrating his bonafide

residence Sydney, Australia, learned Counsel stated that the respondent

has been openly residing and working in Australia on a valid work visa

since December 2021. According to him, considering the reasoned orders

passed in the facts of case, no interference is called for therein.


7.          Perused petition, impugned orders and material placed on

record. The legal principles parameters governing the invocation of

Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the cancellation of




21-Cri WP-825-2026.odt                                                  3 of 5
bail are well settled. It is a well established law that a higher threshold is

required to interfere with an order granting liberty than to reject a bail

plea at the initial stage. Consequently, the regular bail granted to the

Respondent No. 1 by virtue of the order passed by the Learned Trial

Court in RCC No. 687/2015 cannot be canceled unless the impugned

order is shown to be patently perverse, illegal, or bereft of reasoning.


8.          Perusal of the order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the Learned

Trial Court, Jalgaon in RCC No. 687/2015, it is clear that the trial court

balanced all relevant factors before granting bail. The matter essentially

stems from a private matrimonial dispute. The core allegation against

respondent No. 1 is under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, an

offense triable by a Magistrate. Furthermore, the record reveals that the

petitioner did not reside in a joint family with respondent No. 1 post-

marriage. Crucially, the final decree in HMP No. 347/2009 directed only

the husband to return the gold ornaments.


9.          The petitioner's apprehension regarding the respondent No. 1

might flee the country is fully answered by the Trial Courts bail order.

Specifically, Condition (d) explicitly states that respondent No. 1 must

undertake not to leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

Simply filing a regular legal application before the Magistrate to request

permission to return to work abroad does not mean he violated his bail




21-Cri WP-825-2026.odt                                                   4 of 5
terms. Learned Trial Court remains fully vested with the statutory

jurisdiction to regulate the respondent's movements, modify the Look-

Out Circular (LOC) parameters, or grant exemption from personal

appearance by permitting representation through Counsel, thereby

ensuring the seamless progress of the trial without any impediment.


10.           Furthermore, respondent No. 1 has neither breached any bail

conditions since his release nor alleged to have tempered with witnesses.

His past failures to appear in court are reasonably explained by his

ongoing employment abroad and the fact that the initial complaint

contained an incorrect address. As a result, this Court finds no error

being committed while passing orders impugned. Needless to say that

the power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure especially when directed against the concurrent findings of the

sub-ordinate court is an extraordinary remedy and must be used

sparingly.


11.           As a result of above discussion, no case is made out by

petitioner to cause interference in the orders impugned. Hence, petition

stands dismissed.




                                                     (R. M. JOSHI, J.)

B. S. Joshi




21-Cri WP-825-2026.odt                                                5 of 5