Bombay High Court
KIRAN VILAS BURHADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The Court held that custodial interrogation was not required and granted anticipatory bail in all five applications.
Summary
The petitioner, Kiran Vilas Burhade, filed five anticipatory bail applications seeking protection from arrest in separate FIRs registered under Sections 305 and 331 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He had previously been detained for five days in a similar case but was released on bail without any offence being formally recorded. The State argued that custodial interrogation was necessary because co‑accused statements implicated the petitioner and ten similar cases were pending against him. The Court examined the FIRs, the prior custody, and the lack of material recovered against the petitioner, and concluded that further custodial interrogation was not warranted. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail in all five matters on the condition of a personal bond of Rs 30,000 with sureties and directed the petitioner to cooperate with police as required. The order emphasized that the trial court would decide the merits of the cases independently.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the five FIRs.
- Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in view of the co‑accused statements and prior custody.
- Whether the provisions of Sections 305 and 331 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 305, 331(3), 331(4)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- custodial interrogation
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 305
- Section 331
- multiple FIRs
- prior arrest
- personal bond
Judgment
7-ABA-985-2026 (CR).doc
Rohit Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 985 OF 2026
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1359 OF 2026
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1351 OF 2026
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1352 OF 2026
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1358 OF 2026
Kiran Vilas Burhade
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Amar Kale a/w Ms. Ekta Patil i/b Mr. Prashant Hagare, Advocates for
Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State in ABA No. 985/2026.
Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent-State in ABA No. 1359/2026,
ABA No. 1351/2026, ABA No. 1352/2026 and ABA No. 1358/2026.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 02nd JULY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The allegations against the applicant in all five applications are
the same hence, I am deciding it by this common order.
2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 992 of 2025
Page 1 of 4
7-ABA-985-2026 (CR).doc
Rohit Ghuge
in ABA No. 985/2026, Crime No. 976 of 2025 in ABA No. 1359/2026,
Crime No. 147 of 2026 in ABA No. 1351/2026, Crime No. 1061 of 2025 in
ABA No. 1358/2026 registered with Yavat Police Station, Dist. Pune for the
offences punishable under Sections 305 and 331(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”), and in Crime No. 401 of 2025 in ABA No.
1352/2025 registered with Yavat Police Station, Dist. Pune for the offences
punishable under Sections 305, 331(3) and 331(4) of BNS.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant was earlier arrested in CR No. 22 of 2026 registered with Yavat
Police Station in connection with a similar nature offence and remained in
police custody for five days. However, no offence was registered against
him at that time. After the applicant was released on bail, his name came
to be added as accused in present five FIRs. The main allegations are
against other co-accused. Considering allegations, his custodial
interrogation is not required, and requested to allow the applications.
4. It is contention of learned APP that after the applicant was
released on bail, the statement of the co-accused was recorded and
panchnamas were prepared. During the course of investigation, it revealed
that the co-accused had sold the stolen gold ornaments to the applicant. It
shows his involvement in the crime. Considering allegations, his custodial
interrogation is required as ten cases of similar nature are registered
Page 2 of 4
7-ABA-985-2026 (CR).doc
Rohit Ghuge
against him, and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused FIR and documents
produced on record.
6. The applicant was in police custody for five days in CR No. 22
of 2026 registered with Yavat Police Station, Dist. Pune for the offence of
the similar nature. In the said offence, nothing was recovered at the
instance of the applicant. To prove his role, trial is required. Considering
these facts, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and
I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in
Crime No. 992 of 2025, Crime No. 976 of 2025, Crime No. 147
of 2026, Crime No. 1061 of 2025 and Crime No. 401 of 2025
registered with Yavat Police Station, Dist. Pune on executing
P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- in each crime with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
All five applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and are
accordingly disposed off.
7. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
Page 3 of 4
7-ABA-985-2026 (CR).doc
Rohit Ghuge
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…