Bombay High Court
DNYANESHWAR S/O PRALHAD GOREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- FARHAN PARVEZ DUBASH
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant with specified conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Dnyaneshwar Gore, the elder brother of accused No.1 in an FIR alleging sexual assault and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR also alleged that the applicant verbally abused and threatened the complainant’s father and made derogatory remarks about the complainant and her mother. The Sessions Court had rejected the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant. The Court held that the serious offences under Sections 64 and 69 pertain only to accused No.1, while the applicant is alleged only of bailable offences of abuse and threat, and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary given the arrest of accused No.1 and the filing of the charge‑sheet. Applying the principles from Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with conditions, emphasizing the need to balance investigation with protection from undue harassment.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of abuse and threat under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the alleged offences against the applicant attract non‑bailable status under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69.
- Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation.
- Whether the applicant’s relationship to the principal accused justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 351(2), 352, 64(2)(m), 69
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bailable offences
- custodial interrogation
- sexual assault
- brother liability
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 482
- Section 64
- Section 69
- Section 351
- Section 352
Judgment
16-ABA-1444-2026.doc
Dnyneshwar Vs. State
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 1444 OF 2026
Dnyaneshwar S/o Pralhad Gore ...Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_______________________________________
Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni for the Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Pooja Pradhan Gavhane, Lonavala City Police Station, present.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
DATE : 3rd JUNE 2026
(VACATION COURT)
ORDER:
1. By the present application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in First
Information Report (FIR) bearing no. C.R. No. 0050 of 2026, dated
23rd March 2026, registered with Lonavala Police Station, Pune Rural,
for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 351(2), 352,
AMOL
PREMNATH
JADHAV 64 (2) (m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV
Date: 2026.06.04 applicant, Mr. Dnyaneshwar Pralhad Gore, is named as accused no.2
13:26:13 +0530
in the FIR and is the elder brother of Mr Vivek Pralhad Gore, who has
been named as accused no.1.
2. For the purposes of deciding the present application, it is necessary to
Page 1 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
16-ABA-1444-2026.doc
Dnyneshwar Vs. State
set out the relevant facts in brief, which are set out hereunder:
i. According to the FIR, the complainant/ first informant/ victim
is a software engineer in a company. The FIR states that in
February 2025, her family and accused no.1 exchanged biodata
for marriage and that on 9 th April 2025, accused no.1 contacted
the complainant through his Instagram account.
ii. Thereafter, the FIR reveals that their communication increased
through phone calls, messages, and video calls and that since
they were from the same profession, same caste, and were
related to each other, and from the same district, she became
acquainted with him and developed trust in him.
iii. Thereafter, on 16th April 2025, the FIR reveals that accused
no.1 messaged the complainant on Instagram, saying that he
loved her and proposed to her and that he asked her to come to
Pune and said that they would spend time together and
understand each other. On 19th April 2025, they met at Kothrud
and then went to NDA, Pashan, where accused no.1 told her
that they would go to Alandi and get married, and that he
would call his mother there, and that they would send a direct
marriage photograph to the family. By saying so, he gained her
trust. Pursuant thereto, the FIR states that the complainant
Page 2 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
16-ABA-1444-2026.doc
Dnyneshwar Vs. State
believed him and, relying on the promise of marriage, she went
with him to Lonavala between 20 th April 2025 and 22nd April
2025.
iv. It is alleged in the FIR that on 20 th April 2025, between 11:00
a.m. and 12:00 noon, the complainant went to bathe in the
bathroom of the hotel room, while accused no. 1 was in the
bedroom and that while she was bathing, he suddenly started
knocking on the bathroom door and asked her to open it, to
which the complainant responded that she would come out
after bathing, but accused no.1 kept knocking and insisted that
she open the door hence she opened the door and accused no.1
then forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. The FIR further
states that she cried a lot that day and, on the assurance of
accused no.1 that he would marry her, trusting his promise of
marriage, she had sexual relations with him repeatedly. The
FIR states that the complainant alleged that during the period
from April 2025 to September 2025, accused No.1 had sexual
relations with her against her wishes and later refused to marry
her.
v. Insofar as the allegations against the applicant are concerned,
the FIR states that the father of the complainant went to the
Page 3 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
16-ABA-1444-2026.doc
Dnyneshwar Vs. State
house of the accused No. 1 for the purposes of discussing the
marriage of the complainant, at that time, it is alleged that the
applicant verbally abused her father and threatened to kill him.
Further, on 12th March 2026, it is alleged that when the
complainant called the applicant to ask about accused no.1, he
hurled insults at her and made derogatory remarks regarding
her character and that of her mother.
vi. Pursuant to the filing of the FIR, the applicant along with
accused no.1 were constrained to approach the Sessions Court
at Wadgaon Maval, Pune, by filing Criminal Bail Application
No. 130 of 2026 dated 4th April 2026 seeking anticipatory bail
under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 which came to be rejected by an order dated 19 th May
2026, as regards the applicant, mainly on the ground that the
applicant had abused the complainant’s father and threatened
to kill him whilst further observing that when the complainant
called the applicant, he also hurled abuses at her and made
derogatory remarks regarding her character as well as the
character of her mother, and therefore, his involvement in the
crime was evident.
3. Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant,
Page 4 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
16-ABA-1444-2026.doc
Dnyneshwar Vs. State
submits that notwithstanding the innocence of his client, even if the
allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, the same do not
attract the ingredients of Sections 64 and 69 of the BNS, insofar as
the applicant is concerned. He further submits that, at the most, the
allegations against the applicant are only of having abused and
threatened the complainant and/or her father, which are bailable
offences.
4. Mr. Kulkarni further submits that the Sessions Judge has rejected the
application of the applicant in a casual and mechanical manner. He
contends that the Sessions Court was informed that accused No.1 had
already been arrested on 17th April 2026, and despite the same, the
application came to be rejected without properly appreciating the
limited role attributed to the applicant.
5. It is reiterated that the role attributed to the applicant is limited and
that the only allegation against the applicant is that he allegedly
abused and threatened the complainant and/or her father, and except
for this, no other act has been attributed to him. He contends that the
principal allegation of maintaining physical relations with the
complainant on the promise of marriage is against accused No.1, who
has already been arrested.
6. Lastly, he contends that in the facts of the present case, the custodial
Page 5 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
16-ABA-1444-2026.doc
Dnyneshwar Vs. State
interrogation of the applicant is not necessary and that nothing
remains to be recovered from the applicant, and the investigation has
already been completed, and the charge-sheet has already been filed.
Mr. Kulkarni further submits that the applicant is willing to cooperate
with the investigating agency and ready to abide by any condition that
may be imposed by this Court.
7. On the other hand, the learned APP, Mr. Tanveer Khan opposes the
application. It is submitted that the allegations are serious in nature
and that the Sessions Court has already rejected the Applicant’s prayer
for anticipatory bail giving cogent reasons.
8. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions made
by the parties. At the outset, it is relevant to note that serious /
primary allegations attracting Sections 64 and 69 of the BNS are
directed only against accused no.1 namely, allegations of sexual
intercourse on the promise of marriage. However, insofar as the
applicant is concerned, the only allegation against him is that of
abuse, insult and threat to the complainant and her family members.
That apart, no specific overt act in relation to the principal offence is
attributed to him.
9. The mere fact that the applicant happens to be the brother of accused
no.1 cannot, by itself, justify his custodial interrogation in the absence
Page 6 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
16-ABA-1444-2026.doc
Dnyneshwar Vs. State
of material disclosing a more direct role. It is also material to note that
accused no.1 has already been arrested and remanded to custody, and
the investigation has progressed to the stage of filing the charge-sheet.
In these circumstances, no specific material has been pointed out to
demonstrate why custodial interrogation of the applicant is
indispensable for the purpose of further investigation, and hence the
necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant will have to be
considered in the light of the limited role attributed to him. Moreover,
the offences under Sections 351 and 352 of the BNS are bailable in
nature. Therefore, even assuming the allegations against the applicant
are accepted, for the limited purpose of the present application, the
said offences do not, by themselves, justify custodial interrogation.
10. It is settled law by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
vs. State of Maharashtra1 that whilst considering a prayer for
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between ensuring a free,
fair and full investigation and protecting an accused from unnecessary
harassment, humiliation, and unjustified detention.
11. Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the present
applicant, the fact that accused no.1 has already been arrested, and
the further fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, I am of
1 (2011) 1 SCC 694
Page 7 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
16-ABA-1444-2026.doc
Dnyneshwar Vs. State
the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted.
12. Considering this, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed
on the following terms:
a) In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No. 50 of 2026
registered with Lonavala Police Station, District Pune Rural, for
the offences punishable under Sections 3 (5), 64(2)(m), 69,
351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R./S.B Bond
in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
b) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of
Lonavala Police Station on every Monday between 11.00 a.m.
and 2.00 p.m. commencing from the date of this order.
Thereafter, as and when called upon by the Investigating
Officer, the applicant shall ensure his presence before the
Investigating Officer.
c) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall
not directly or indirectly tamper with the evidence nor
influence any witnesses, or any person connected with the
case.
d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of
Page 8 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
16-ABA-1444-2026.doc
Dnyneshwar Vs. State
the trial Court.
13. In the event the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in
this order, the anticipatory bail granted herein shall be liable to be
cancelled. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited to the disposal of the present Application, and the Trial Court
shall proceed in the matter without being influenced by the
observations made hereinabove.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Amol
Page 9 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 3rd June 2026
Checking your session…