Bombay High Court

AMIT SURESH SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Amit Suresh Shinde under CrPC Sec. 438 and B.N.S. Sec. 482 in connection with charges of causing a miscarriage and related offences. The prosecution alleged that Shinde instructed a doctor to induce a miscarriage without his wife's knowledge and harassed her. The court noted that the investigating agency had dropped the miscarriage charge against co‑accused based on a medical report confirming the husband and wife gave consent, and that all other co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The applicant’s only prior antecedent was a 2009 case under IPC Sec. 323 from which he was acquitted. Considering the consent, lack of other criminal history, and the fact that the investigation was essentially complete, the court granted anticipatory bail with several conditions, clarifying that the order was only prima facie for the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite allegations of causing a miscarriage and harassment
Whether the presence of prior acquitted antecedent under IPC Sec. 323 affects the grant of bail
Whether the consent of the wife, as evidenced by the medical report, negates the miscarriage charge

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 75, 85, 88
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323

Subjects

anticipatory bail
miscarriage
consent
criminal procedure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
harassment
domestic violence
prior acquittal

Judgment

03-ABA-1035-2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Digitally ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1035 OF 2026
signed by
ARJUN
VITTHAL
ARJUN
VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Amit Suresh Shinde …Applicant
KUDHEKAR Date:
2026.09.07
21:06:01
Versus
+0530
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

Mr. Prashant P. Raul a/w Mr. Makarand Shinde & Mr. Suraj, for the
Applicant.
Mr. Prashant. P. Jadhav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Toheed Maniyar (Through Video Conferencing) i/b Sarfaraj
Shaikh, for Respondent No.2.
API Sushil S. Londhe, Warje Malwadi Police Station, Pune City,
present.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 07 SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Raul, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant, Mr. Jadhav, learned APP, for the Respondent-State of

Maharashtra and Mr. Maniyar, learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No.2.

2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under Section 482 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is

seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.57 of 2026

registered with the Warje Malwadi Police Station, Pune City, for the

Page 1
Arjun
03-ABA-1035-2026.DOC

offences punishable under Sections 85, 74, 75, 88, 115(2), 351(2)

and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Mr. Raul, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits that the

main allegation against the Applicant-Husband is that the

Applicant instructed the Doctor to carry out the miscarriage

without the knowledge of the First Informant-Wife and also

harassed her. He submits that there are a total of five Accused. The

learned Sessions Court, Pune by Order dated 13th March 2026

granted anticipatory bail to Accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6. A learned

Single Judge by Order dated 1st April 2026 passed in Anticipatory

Bail Application No.720 of 2026, granted anticipatory bail to

Accused No.3. He submits that, except the Applicant, all the

Accused have been granted anticipatory bail. He submits that the

main allegation is concerning causing miscarriage. He submits that

the Charge-sheet has been filed against all other Accused and the

allegation of causing miscarriage has been dropped by the

Investigating Agency while filing the Charge-sheet, in view of the

Report of the Medical Doctor, wherein it is stated that the

procedure was performed after both the husband and wife had

given their consent. Mr. Raul, learned Counsel, also submits that

Page 2
Arjun
03-ABA-1035-2026.DOC

although the Applicant has one antecedent, the same is of the year

2009 and concerning an offence under Section 323 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), in which the Applicant was acquitted.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Jadhav, learned APP and Mr.

Maniyar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/First Informant,

strongly oppose the Anticipatory Bail Application. Both of them

submit that the First Informant was harassed by the Applicant and

procedure was performed without her knowledge and, therefore,

the Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected.

5. Perusal of the record shows that, as far as the allegation of

causing miscarriage is concerned, the Investigating Agency while

filing the Charge-sheet against the other Co-Accused has dropped

the said charge in view of the Report of the Doctor who carried out

the procedure wherein it is specifically stated that both the

husband and wife had given their consent for carrying out the

procedure. The documents showing the consent of the First

Informant for carrying out the procedure are annexed to the

Anticipatory Bail Application.

6. Except the Applicant, the other Co-Accused have been

Page 3
Arjun
03-ABA-1035-2026.DOC

granted anticipatory bail. The Charge-sheet has also been filed

against them. Thus, the investigation is practically completed.

7. There are no other antecedents against the Applicant except

the antecedent of the year 2009, concerning an offence punishable

under Section 323 of IPC. The Applicant has already been

acquitted in that case by Order dated 11th January 2017.

8. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out for

grant of anticipatory bail, by imposing conditions. In view thereof,

the following Order is passed:

ORDER

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Amit Suresh

Shinde in connection with CR No.57 of 2026

registered with the Warje Malwadi Police Station,

Pune City, the Applicant is directed to be released on

bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of

Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the

like amount.

(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police

Station on 10th September 2026 and 11th September

2026 between 11:00 am and 02:00 pm and,

Page 4
Arjun
03-ABA-1035-2026.DOC

thereafter, once in a week i.e. on every Monday

between 11:00 am and 02:00 pm.

residential address to the Investigating Officer and

shall keep the same updated, in case of any change

thereto.

(d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat, or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or

to any Police personnel.

(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution

evidence and shall not contact or influence the

Complainant or any witness in any manner.

9. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

10. Mr. Raul, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Maniyar,

learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/First Informant, state that

divorce proceedings and proceedings under the DV Act are pending

between the parties.

Page 5
Arjun
03-ABA-1035-2026.DOC

11. Accordingly, it is clarified that the observations made in this

Order are only prima facie observations made for the purpose of

deciding the Anticipatory Bail Application. The learned Trial Court,

while conducting the trial, as also the learned Courts dealing with

the divorce proceedings and the proceedings under the DV Act,

shall pass Order uninfluenced by the observations made in this

Order.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Page 6
Arjun

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…