SUMIT PRAKASH YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                          32-ABA-165-2026.doc


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2026
Sumit Prakash Yadav                                      ...Applicant
         Versus
State of Maharashtra And Anr.                         ...Respondents
                                  -------
Mr. Vaibhav Halake, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent – State.
PSI A. S. Kudle, Murgud Police Station, is present.
                                  -------
                                 CORAM :     ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
                                  DATE :     28th September, 2026.
P.C. :


1.       Heard Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant

and Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent – State.



2.       By this Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail

apprehending arrest in Crime No. 34 of 2026, registered at Murgud

Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(5),

308(6), 308(7), 351(2) and 352, read with Section 3(5) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.



3.       Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant states

that there are 5 Accused in Crime No. 34 of 2026, Applicant being
Arjun                             1
                                                          32-ABA-165-2026.doc


Accused No. 5.



4.      In brief, the prosecution case is that on 01.01.2026, Rushikesh

Dhende (Accused No. 1) called the Complainant’s father (Krushna

Dabhole) and informed him that Tejpal Kamble (Accused No. 2) had

come to meet him at Murgud Naka. Upon meeting Accused No. 2 and

Saurabh Kamble (Accused No. 3), the Complainant’s father was

threatened with complaints under the POCSO Act, the Atrocities Act

and for rape, in connection with his friendship and WhatsApp

conversations with a minor girl. The accused persons demanded ₹15

lakh to avoid registration of the offences and threatened the

Complainant’s father with harm to his family if he did not pay. Between

02.01.2026 and 04.01.2026, the accused persons and an unknown

person continued threatening Complainant’s father over the telephone.

On 06.01.2026, the Complainant’s father paid ₹15 lakh in cash to

Accused No. 2, Accused No. 3 and an unknown person. However, they

told the Complainant's father that the ₹15 lakh was a token amount and

further demanded an additional ₹35 lakh, threatening to lodge criminal

complaints if the amount was not paid by 25.01.2026. Subsequently, on

12.01.2026, the police informed the Complainant that they had

registered a complaint against his father and took him to the police

station. The Complainant states that he learnt of the extortion from his
Arjun                            2
                                                                   32-ABA-165-2026.doc


father during visits to him in judicial custody and handed over a pen

drive containing call recordings and voice recordings                         of   the

conversations to the police. Accordingly, the Complainant lodged the

present FIR on 22.02.2026 against Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2,

Accused No. 3, and one unknown accomplice. The Applicant was made

Accused No. 5 in the present crime, based on the disclosure made by the

co-accused regarding his alleged involvement in the crime.



5.      On 09.04.2026, the following order was passed in this

Application:-


1.     Learned Advocate for the Applicant tenders across the bar an Order
dated 8th April 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in
Criminal Bail Application No. 276 of 2026, whereby Original Accused No. 2,
namely Tejpal Yuvraj Kamble, has been released on regular bail.


2.     The Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that paragraph 10
of the said Order records that the Investigating Officer has seized certain
pen drives, mobile handsets with SIM cards, and more pertinently, the
muddemal amount of Rs. 14 lakhs has already been recovered. He further
submits that the Applicant's name is not mentioned in the FIR and has been
introduced only in the second remand application, merely alleging that he
was present and that certain amounts were taken.

3.     The Learned APP submits that the Investigating Officer is unable to
remain present before the Court today and seeks time to take instructions.

4.       Considering the aforesaid submissions, there shall be ad-interim
relief in terms of prayer clause (b).

5.      Stand over to 18th April 2026.




Arjun                                    3
                                                                   32-ABA-165-2026.doc


6.       Prayer clause (b), referred to in the order dated 09.04.2026,

reads thus:-



           (b)     That pending the hearing and final disposal of the
           present Anticipatory Bail Application, this Hon'ble Court may
           be pleased to grant interim bail to the Applicant in
           connection with C.R. No. 34 of 2026 registered with Murgud
           Police Station, Kolhapur;


7.      Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent - State, has

raised a strong objection to entertaining this Anticipatory Bail

Application. She states that the Applicant, involved in a serious offence,

did not appear before the Investigating Officer at Murgud Police Station

on any date, even after being granted interim bail on 09.04.2026. She

submits that by this conduct, the Applicant has abused the process of

law and taken Court orders for granted. She submits that in view of the

Applicant's failure to appear before the Investigating Officer at Murgud

Police Station, the investigation in Crime No. 34 of 2026 has stalled as

regards the Applicant. She submits that the Applicant's presence before

the Investigating Officer is required for a thorough investigation, to

conduct a test identification parade, given the serious allegations made

in the FIR by the Complainant. She submits that the custodial

interrogation of the Applicant is necessary. She therefore opposes the

present Application.



Arjun                                 4
                                                         32-ABA-165-2026.doc


8.      With reference to the said submission of Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh,

learned APP, Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

submits that the Applicant is not named in the FIR and that the

Applicant has been brought on record and arrayed as an accused in

view of the remand order dated 27.02.2026. He submits that the entire

amount alleged to have been extorted has been recovered at the

instance of the other accused, who have been released on regular bail.



9.      Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits

that the Applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer, Murgud

Police Station, on 2 dates, i.e. 23.02.2026 and 24.02.2026. He submits

that the Investigating Officer also seized the Applicant's mobile phone

on one of those dates. He submits that custodial interrogation of the

Applicant is not required. He reiterates that the FIR contains no

allegations against the Applicant.



10.     In response to the submissions advanced by Mr. Vaibhav Halake,

learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP,

by referring to the investigation papers, submits that a witness (Gulab

Thadke) has categorically stated that the Applicant, along with Accused

No. 2, is involved in the crime, having come to the spot and even

collected the extortion amount. She further, by referring to the

Arjun                                5
                                                            32-ABA-165-2026.doc


statement of Gulab Thadke, submits that the Applicant was found

counting the cash handed over as the extorted amount. She submits

that the other accused have been released on regular bail upon

completion of the investigation against them. She submits that the

Applicant has not cooperated in the investigation. Hence, she reiterates

that the Applicant is required for custodial interrogation in the present

crime, which is of a serious nature, i.e., extortion of money.



11.     Perused the records and the investigation papers as relied by Mrs.

S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP.



12.     Prima facie, the involvement of the Applicant, as submitted by

Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, is evident in Crime No. 34 of 2026,

as per the statement of the witness Gulab Thadke. As submitted by Mrs.

S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, the Applicant's involvement in the crime

is in extorting money and even counting it after receiving it from

Krushna Dabhole.



13.     Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, has submitted that part of the

extortion amount remains unrecovered and that the custodial

interrogation of the Applicant is required to unearth the involvement of

other persons and to identify any other such instances. Mrs. S. N.


Arjun                             6
                                                             32-ABA-165-2026.doc


Deshmukh, learned APP, further states that a test identification parade

is also required.



14.     Despite the order dated 09.04.2026, which granted the Applicant

ad-interim bail, the Applicant chose not to appear before the

Investigating Officer or cooperate with the investigation.



15.     Though Mr. Vaibhav Halake, on instructions from the Applicant,

has submitted that the Applicant appeared before the Investigating

Officer at Murgud Police Station on 23rd and 24th February, 2026, and

even surrendered his mobile, there is no material to support his

statement.



16.     Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, on instructions from the

Investigating Officer disputes and denies the statement made by Mr.

Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant. She submits that

this is another attempt made by the Applicant to mislead the Court.



17.     Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, submits that the practice in

the State of Maharashtra is that once an accused is directed to appear

before the Investigating Officer, the accused maintains a diary and the

Investigating Officer affixes their seal and the date and time of the

appearance of the accused. She states that the Applicant has not
Arjun                             7
                                                                                 32-ABA-165-2026.doc


                     produced proof of his appearance.



                     18.      Upon this submission by Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, to a

                     query addressed to Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the

                     Applicant, as to whether he has any such proof, he, on instructions from

                     the Applicant, answers in the negative.



                     19.     In view of the above and more particularly, a prima facie case

                     having been made out against the Applicant, warranting his custodial

                     interrogation in Crime No. 34 of 2026 no indulgence is warranted. This

                     application is therefore rejected.



                     20.     Anticipatory Bail Application No. 165 of 2026 is dismissed.



                                                                     (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)


        Digitally
        signed by
        ARJUN
ARJUN   KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE   Date:
        2026.09.30
        12:18:35
        +0530




                     Arjun                                8