Bombay High Court

SANJAY DATTARAM SALGAONKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court disposed of the anticipatory bail application without ordering custodial interrogation, subject to the condition that the applicant cooperate and appear before the investigating officer as required.

Summary

The applicant, Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar, filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with FIR No. 8 of 2026 alleging offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Trade Marks Act. The State contended that the applicant was involved in the alleged offences and had received money, citing statements of co‑accused and the company owner. The applicant argued that he was implicated solely on the co‑accused’s statement and pledged full cooperation with the investigating officer. The State’s counsel, after confirming the applicant’s cooperation, stated that custodial interrogation was unnecessary but proposed a condition of appearing before the investigating officer as required. Both parties agreed to the condition, and the court, noting the lack of need for custodial interrogation, disposed of the anticipatory bail application, effectively granting interim relief subject to the cooperation condition.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accused is implicated solely on the statement of a co‑accused.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the present case.
Whether the court can impose a condition of appearing before the investigating officer as a condition of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 123, 341, 342, 345(1), 346
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 — s. 108, 65(a), 65(b), 65(d), 65(e), 81, 83, 90
Trade Marks Act, 1999 — s. 103, 104

Subjects

anticipatory bail
custodial interrogation
co‑accused statement
cooperation with investigation
excise offences
Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Trade Marks Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

20-ABA-140-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 140 OF 2026
Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar … Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents
----
Mr. Sudarshan Patil a/w Ruturaj Sawardekar and Anita Parit, for the
Applicant.
Dr. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Ajitkumar Naikude, Sub Inspector, Kagal – Kollhapur, is present.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 19th August, 2026.
P.C. :

1. Heard Mr. Sudarshan Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant

and Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP for the Respondent – State.

2. On 18.03.2026, the following order was passed :-

1. Present Application has been filed seeking
anticipatory bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 08 of 2026, dated 18 th
January 2026, registered with State Excise Department Kagal,
District Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Sections
65(a), (b), (d), (e), 81, 83, 90, 108 of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, 1949, Sections 123, 341, 342, 345(1), 346 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 103 & 104 of
The Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is the primary contention of the
Applicant that the Applicant has been arraigned as an accused
solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused.

2. Learned A.PP., while denying the aforesaid
contention, submits that the Applicant is involved in the alleged
Arjun 1
20-ABA-140-2026.doc

offence and has received money in his account. It is further
submitted that the owner of the company, Canus Packaging, in
his statement dated 24th February 2026, has stated that the
entire day-to-day administration and affairs of the said
company were looked after by the present Applicant.

3. Learned A.PP. seeks time to file affidavit placing
on record the relevant documents.

4. Let the affidavit be filed on or before 25 th March
2026, with an advance copy thereof to be served to the learned
Advocate for the Applicant.

5. Stand over to 26th March 2026.

6. Till the next date, there shall be ad-interim relief
in terms of prayer clause (B).

3. Prayer clause (B) of this Application reads as follows :-

B. That pending the hearing and final disposal of
this application the applicant be released on interim bail in the
event of his arrest, in connection with the State Excise
Department Kagal CR. NO. 8/2026 offence punishable under
sec. 65(a), (b), (d), (e), 81, 83, 90,108 of Maharashtra
Prohibition Act 1949, section 123, 341, 342,345(1), 346 of
B.N.S. and section 103 and 104 of Trademark Act 1999 on such
terms & conditions as this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper;

4. Mr. Sudarshan Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states

that the Applicant has appeared before the Investigating Officer of the

State Excise Department, Kagal, Kolhapur and has co-operated with the

investigation in Crime No. 8 of 2026. On instructions from the

Applicant, he states that the Applicant will continue to co-operate with

the investigation in Crime No. 8 of 2026 and shall appear before the
Arjun 2
20-ABA-140-2026.doc

Investigating Officer of the State Excise Department, Kagal, Kolhapur as

and when required.

5. Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP for the Respondent – State, on

instructions from the Investigating Officer, the State Excise Department,

Kagal, Kolhapur, states that the Applicant has appeared before the

Investigating Officer in Crime No. 8 of 2026 and the Applicant has

cooperated with the investigation of the said crime. She, again on

specific instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that, in view of

the Applicant's cooperation in the investigation of Crime No. 8 of 2026,

custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required. She, however,

submits that a condition of the Applicant appearing before the

Investigating Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer

be imposed.

6. Mr. Sudarshan Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, on

instructions from the Applicant, states that the Applicant shall appear

before the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 8 of 2026, as and when

required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate in the investigation.

7. Statements made by Mr. Sudarshan Patil, learned Advocate for

the Applicant and Dr. A. A. Takalkar learned APP for the Respondent –

Arjun 3
20-ABA-140-2026.doc

State are taken on record.

8. In view of the statement made by Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP

for the Respondent – State, that the custodial interrogation of the

Applicant is not required in Crime No. 8 of 2026, Mr. Sudarshan Patil,

learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that this Application be

disposed of.

9. Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 140 of 2026 is

disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.08.20
10:34:46
+0530

Arjun 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…