Bombay High Court
MAHAVEER BABASO HULLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court confirmed the interim protection and disposed of the anticipatory bail application, thereby denying anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Mahaveer Babaso Hulle, sought anticipatory bail while being accused of multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 65 of 2023. An interim protection order had been granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, but the matter was not settled through mediation. The applicant cooperated with the investigating officer, and the State argued that the investigation was complete and a charge‑sheet had been filed. The court noted that the regular bail of another accused had been rejected for non‑compliance with bail conditions. Relying on the State’s submissions, the court confirmed the interim protection and ordered the applicant to be released on personal and surety bond of Rs. 25,000, subject to cooperation with police. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of, effectively denying the applicant further bail relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in view of the serious offences alleged under the IPC.
- Whether the interim protection granted by the Additional Sessions Judge should be continued pending further proceedings.
- Whether the applicant's cooperation with the investigating officer influences the grant or denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 175, 181, 182, 191, 192, 199, 200, 34, 405, 415, 417, 418, 420, 421, 422, 425, 462, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- interim protection
- bail conditions
- cooperation with police
- charge sheet
- criminal procedure
Judgment
1/4
25-ABA-1538-2023 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1538 OF 2023
Mahaveer Babaso Hulle …...Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra and Anr. …...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Kuldeep Nikam (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Onkar Bajaj, for Applicant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite, for the Intervenor (Orig. Complainant).
PSI, Mr. Sambhaji B. Gaiwad, Mahatma Gandhi Chowk Police Station,
Miraj
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.09.22
13:41:34
+0530 DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P., for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr.
Vishwajeet V. Mohite, learned Advocate for the Intervenor.
2. On 29th May, 2023, the following order was passed:
“INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 9879 OF 2023
1. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.
2. The first informant wants to intervene in the matter. His prayer
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/4
25-ABA-1538-2023 (CR).DOC
is granted. Interim application is disposed of.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1538 OF 2023
3. Heard learned Advocate Shri Nikam for the Applicant and
learned Advocate for the first informant-intervenor and also
heard learned APP.
4. During the pendency of the anticipatory bail application before
the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, there was interim
protection as per order dated 11/04/2023. It is on page no.
114. Though the matter was referred to the Mediator for
settlement, it has not taken place. On merits the interim
protection was not confirmed. The final order was passed on
09/05/2023.
5. According to the learned Advocate Shri Nikam, the present
Applicant is accused no. 4. He is owner of the property
purchased by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. They have borrowed
money from Jankalyan Nagari Sah Patsanstha Limited. Whereas
according to the learned Advocate for the first informant when
the representatives of the Patsanstha have gone for verifying the
property, the present Applicant alongwith accused Nos. 1 to 3
have shown wrong property.
6. As urgent circulation is granted, for want of time the officer from
the concerned Police station is not present.
7. Let the interim protection granted by learned Additional Sessions
Court be continued till next date. In view of that following order
is passed:-
ORDER
(i) In case of arrest in connection with C.R. No. 65 of 2023
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/4
25-ABA-1538-2023 (CR).DOC
registered with Mahatma Gandhi Police Station, Sangli for the
offence punishable under Sections 175, 181, 182, 191, 192,
199, 200, 405, 415, 417, 418, 420 to 422, 34, 425, 467, 462,
468, 471, 474, 477 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the
Applicant be released on furnishing Personal Bond and Surety
Bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
(ii) Applicant is directed to co-operate the Police as an when
called.
8. Matter be kept on 13th June, 2023.”
3. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states
that the Applicant has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has
co-operated with the investigation. He submits that the Applicant shall co-
operate with the Investigating Officer and appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer.
4. Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State, on
instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that the Applicant has
appeared before the Investigating Officer and has co-operated with the
investigation. He again, on instructions from the Investigating Officer,
submits that the investigation in Crime No.65 of 2023 is complete and the
charge-sheet has been filed. He states that the charge-sheet is registered as
R.C.C. No.394 of 2023.
5. Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State, states
that the Regular Bail Application of Accused No.1 – Sunil Paranjape has
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/4
25-ABA-1538-2023 (CR).DOC
been rejected, as the said accused failed to abide by and comply with the
bail conditions imposed on him while releasing him on bail by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli.
6. In view of the statements made by Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P.
for Respondent No.1 – State in paragraph No.4 herein above, the order
dated 29th May, 2023 is hereby confirmed and made absolute in terms of
paragraph Nos.7 (i) and (ii).
7. The Anticipatory Bail Application No.1538 of 2023 is disposed
of.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…