Bombay High Court
SHRIKANT @ CHIKYA SHANKAR KAMBLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted because the settlement obviated the need for custodial interrogation.
Summary
The applicant, Vaishali Anil Tikam, sought anticipatory bail in a case (Crime No. 119 of 2026) alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the Maharashtra Police Act. The prosecution alleged that on 19 May 2026 the applicant and co‑accused assaulted the first informant and his brother with intent to kill. The applicant contended that the matter had been settled out of court and therefore custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State argued that the allegations were serious and that interrogation was required, opposing the bail. The first informant, however, agreed that the matter was settled and raised no objection. The Court, after hearing all parties and reviewing the FIR, held that settlement negated the need for custodial interrogation and granted anticipatory bail on condition of a bond and sureties, directing the applicant to cooperate with police as required.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the matter is settled out of court despite serious allegations.
- Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25 r/w Section 4
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 118(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 37(1)(3) read with Section 135
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- settlement out of court
- custodial interrogation
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- Maharashtra Police Act
Judgment
38-ABA-1849-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1849 OF 2026
VAISHALI Shrikant @ Chikya Shankar Kamble
ANIL
TIKAM Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr.
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
_________________________________________________________________
2026.08.04
12:01:53 +0530
Mr. Kuldeep Nikam a/w. Nishi Singhvi a/w. Hrishi Shelar, Advocate for
Applicant.
Mr.M.G. Patil, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Gaurav Ugale, Advocate for Intervenor.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 31st JULY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant,learned APP and
learned counsel for first informant.
2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 119 of 2026,
registered with Market Yard Police Station, Dist. Pune, for the offence
punishable under Sections 109, 118(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS), Section 25 r/w. Section 4 of the Arms Act and
Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
3. It is prosecution's case that on 19/05/2026, applicant and co-
accused assaulted the first informant and his brother with intention to kill
them.
Page 1 of 3
38-ABA-1849-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that matter
is settled out of the Court. Hence, custodial interrogation of the Applicant
is not required and requested to allow the application.
5. It is contention of learned APP that allegations against the
Applicant are serious in nature and hence, custodial interrogation of the
applicant is required and requested to reject the application.
6. It is contention of learned counsel for the first informant that
the matter is settle out of the Court. The first informant has no objection
to allow the application.
7. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused the FIR and
documents produced on record. As matter is settled out of the Court,
custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required and I pass following
order.
ORDER
(i) In the even of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime
No. 119 of 2026, registered with Market Yard Police Station, Dist. Pune, on
executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
The application is allowed in above terms and stands disposed
Page 2 of 3
38-ABA-1849-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
of.
6. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…