Bombay High Court
SANGRAM PRAKASH KANDEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as there was no independent evidence linking the applicant to the offences.
Summary
The applicant, Sangram Prakash Kandekar, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 99 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant argued that there was no direct evidence linking him to the alleged offences, only the co‑accused’s statement and documents showing his ownership of a hotel. The State contended that the seriousness of the crime and the applicant’s control over the hotel warranted denial of bail. The court examined the victim statements, which did not support the prosecution, and held that ownership alone did not constitute independent evidence of participation. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, including a personal bond, surety, and restrictions on contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether ownership of the premises where the alleged crime occurred constitutes sufficient evidence to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 99
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act — s. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- evidence
- ownership
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43462
931-ABA-1464-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
931 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1464 OF 2026
Sangram Prakash Kandekar
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Mr. A. K. Bhosle, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondents/State
CORAM :R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE :SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
P. C. :
1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.
207/2026 registered with Police Station Supra, District Ahilyanagar for the
offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 of the Immoral Traffic
Prevention Act and Section 99 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that except for the
statement of co-accused and statement of members of raiding party, there is
absolutely no evidence to connect the Applicant with the present crime.
3. Learned APP opposed the application by citing seriousness of
the crime so also statements recorded during the course of investigation. He
drew attention of the Court to the evidence collected during the course of
investigation in the form of documents indicating Applicant to be the owner
of the hotel. It is his submission that in that capacity, he was controlling the
affairs thereof.
Page 1 of 2
931-ABA-1464-2026.odt
4. A specific query is raised to learned APP to inform this Court
about the statements of victims. From record, it is clear that the victims have
not supported the case of the prosecution against the present Applicant. As
such, there remains no independent evidence in order to establish
involvement of the present Applicant in the crime. In so far as evidence
collected during the course of investigation is concerned, it only indicates
about ownership of the Applicant with the crime in question, which would
not be sufficient to accept the involvement of the Applicant in the crime.
Hence, the order:
ORDER
(i) Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with C.R.
No. 207/2026 registered with Police Station Supra, District
Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4,
5, 7, 8 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 99
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he shall be released on
bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount.
(iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when
required.
(iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(vi) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency
for further investigation.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…