Bombay High Court

ASHOK SAHEBRAO JADHAV AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail is warranted as there is no necessity for custodial interrogation and no evidence directly linking the applicants to the seized motorcycles.

Summary

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered for theft, extortion and related offences under Sections 119(1), 308(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR alleged that the applicants had taken away two motorcycles belonging to the informant and demanded money for their return. The applicants contended that the motorcycles had already been seized and that there was no material linking the recovery to their premises, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. The State argued that eleven motorcycles were seized from the premises of one applicant, indicating substance to the allegations. The Court examined the record, found no evidence that the seized motorcycles were recovered from the applicants' control, and concluded that custodial interrogation was not required, thereby granting anticipatory bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants in view of the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether there is sufficient material linking the applicants to the alleged theft and extortion to justify custodial interrogation.
Whether the recovery of the seized motorcycles establishes a prima facie case against the applicants.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 119(1), 308(2), 351(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
bail
criminal procedure
theft
extortion
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
custodial interrogation
seizure
evidence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43670




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     24 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1357 OF 2026

                            ASHOK SAHEBRAO JADHAV AND ANOTHER
                                              VERSUS
                                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 ...
           Mr. Pavan Mahendra Salunke, Advocate for Applicants
           Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the Respondent/State

                                                    CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                    DATED     : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    Applicants seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

           224/2026, registered with Loni Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the

           offences punishable under Sections 119(1), 308(2), 351(2), 352 of the

           Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.


           2.    The First Information Report indicates that the Informant had obtained

           an amount of Rs. 6,000/- from Applicant No. 1 and thereafter repaid an

           amount of Rs. 15,000/- to him along with interest. He further alleges that,

           about a year ago, the Applicants took away a TVS Star motorcycle belonging

           to the Informant. It is alleged by the Informant that the Applicants demanded

           a further amount of Rs. 40,000/- for returning the said motorcycle. On

           19.05.2026 at about 08:00 a.m., after threatening the Informant for payment



           24 ABA 1357.2026.odt                                                   1 of 3
of Rs. 40,000/-, the Applicants allegedly took away another motorcycle

belonging to the Informant. On the basis of these allegations, the offence

came to be registered.


3.    Learned Advocate for the Applicants submits that, even if it is accepted

that there were financial transactions between the Applicants and the

Informant, there is no material to show that the Applicants had taken away

the motorcycles as alleged. In this regard, it is submitted that both the

motorcycles in question have already been seized and, therefore, custodial

interrogation of the Applicants is not necessary. It is further submitted that the

place from where the said motorcycles were seized does not belong to the

Applicants and, therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to them.


4.    Learned APP opposed the grant of protection to the Applicants by

referring to the investigation papers. According to him, as many as 11

motorcycles were seized from the premises of Applicant No. 2, which shows

that there is substance in the allegations made in the First Information Report.


5.    Perusal of the record shows that there are allegations against the

Applicants that they had taken away one motorcycle about a year ago and

another motorcycle on the date of the incident. Admittedly, both motorcycles

have already been recovered. At this stage, there is nothing in the



24 ABA 1357.2026.odt                                                        2 of 3
investigation papers to indicate that the said recovery was made from

premises belonging to the Applicants or from any place under their control.

Having regard to these facts, this Court finds that this is not a case where

custodial interrogation of the Applicants is necessary. Hence, the following

order.

                                     ORDER

               (i)   Application is allowed.

               (ii) In the event of arrest of Applicants in connection with
               Crime No. 224/2026, registered with Loni Police Station,
               District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under
               Sections 119(1), 308(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
               Sanhita, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond
               of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with one
               solvent surety in the like amount.

               (iii) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or
               indirectly.

               (iv) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any
               manner whatsoever.

               (v) They are further directed to cooperate the investigating
               agency for further investigation.


6.       Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.
                                                      ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




24 ABA 1357.2026.odt                                                       3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…