Bombay High Court
OMKAR ARUN POWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail is to be confirmed and made absolute as the investigation is complete, the charge‑sheet filed, and the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences are not present.
Summary
The applicant, Omkar Arun Powar, was named in FIR No.0066 of 2026 for alleged offences under Sections 108, 352 and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to a GST demand and a cheating case involving the deceased. He sought anticipatory bail, contending that the GST amount was his own money misappropriated by the deceased and that the elements of Section 108 were absent. The State argued that the investigation was complete, a charge‑sheet had been filed and no custodial interrogation was required. The court noted the applicant’s cooperation with the investigating officer and, relying on the lack of statutory ingredients for the offences, confirmed the interim bail and made it absolute, directing the applicant to appear before the trial court when summoned. The anticipatory bail application was therefore disposed in favour of the applicant.
Issues considered
- Whether the ingredients of offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are satisfied in the present case.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted/maintained given the nature of the alleged offences and the status of investigation.
- Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary after the filing of the charge‑sheet.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108, 351(2) read with 3(5), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- GST fraud
- suicide
- investigation completed
- charge sheet
Judgment
1
54-ABA-199-2026 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 199 OF 2026
Omkar Arun Powar …...Applicant
VERSUS.
The State Of Maharashtra And Another …...Respondents
-----
Ms. Sakshi Lokare i/b Mr. Vishal Mane, for the Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026.
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.08.25
15:43:05
+0530
P.C.
1. Heard Ms. Sakshi Lokare, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
and Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State.
2. On 10th April, 2026, the following order was passed:
“1. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has filed the present
Anticipatory Bail Application in respect of FIR bearing
No.0066 of 2026 dated 23rd March, 2026, registered
with Kagal Police Station, Kolhapur, for the offences
punishable under Sections 108, 352, 351(2) read with
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that, upon
perusal of the FIR, it is clear and an admitted position
that the demand of Rs.13 lakhs made by the Applicant
(original Accused No.2) pertains to GST liability and
penalty which the Applicant had to pay due to the
alleged fraud committed by the deceased.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
54-ABA-199-2026 (CR).DOC
3. He further submits that the FIR also indicates that a case
of cheating involving Rs.58 lakhs had been filed against
the deceased for misuse of the username and password
in respect of a firm named Datta Samartha Services. He
submits that the GST amount payable on account of the
Applicant’s business had already been handed over to
the deceased, who failed to deposit the same in the
Government treasury. Consequently, a notice dated 6 th
February 2026 was issued to the Applicant demanding
Rs.13,14,308/- towards GST dues. Pursuant thereto, the
Applicant paid an amount of Rs.12,82,562/- as
evidenced by the GST payment receipt dated 10 th
February 2026. He submits that the amount demanded
by the Applicant was his own money which had been
misappropriated/misused by the deceased.
4. Learned APP seeks time to take instructions and submits
that the Applicant should cooperate with the
investigation and attend the Investigating Officer.
5. The Applicant is directed to attend the Investigating
Officer on 15th, 16th, and 17th April 2026 between 11:00
a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and thereafter as and when called
upon by the Investigating Officer.
6. Learned Advocate for the Applicant states that the
applicant would attend the investigation and appear
before the Investigating officer on the said dates.
7. In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms
of prayer clause (a).
8. Stand over to 23rd April, 2026.”
3. The prayer clause (a) of the Application reads thus:
“a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present
Application and grant Anticipatory Bail to the Applicant,
Onkar Arun Powar, in connection with C.R. No.66 of 2026
registered with Kagal Police Station, District: Kolhapur,
and be pleased to direct that in the event of his arrest, he
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
54-ABA-199-2026 (CR).DOC
be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
4. Ms. Sakshi Lokare, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits
that the ingredients necessary to attract the offence punishable under
Section 108 of the BNSS, as well as the other offences alleged against the
Applicant, are absent in Crime No. 0066 of 2026. She further submits that
a mere demand for GST by the Applicant would not constitute an act that
could have instigated or driven the deceased to take the extreme step of
committing suicide. In support of her submissions, she relies on the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhirubhai Nanjibhai
Patel Lotwala Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.
5. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 –
State submits that pursuant to the order dated 10 th April, 2026, the
Applicant has appeared before the Investigating Officer and co-operated
with the investigation in Crime No.66 of 2026. He further submits, on
instructions, that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has
been filed. He on instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that
custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required in Crime No. 0066
of 2026.
6. In view of the statement made by Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned
APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State, that the investigation in Crime No.
0066 of 2026 is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed and that the
custodial interrogation of the Applicant in Crime No. 0066 of 2026 is not
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4
54-ABA-199-2026 (CR).DOC
required, the ad-interim protection granted to the Applicant by the order
dated 10th April, 2026 is confirmed.
7. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 –
State, submits that the Applicant should be directed to appear before the
Trial Court as and when the case (Crime No. 0066 of 2026) is committed.
8. Ms. Sakshi Lokare, learned Advocate for the Applicant, on
instructions, states that the Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court
upon being summoned by the Trial Court.
9. In view of the above, the order dated 10th April, 2026 is
confirmed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
10. Anticipatory Bail Application No.199 of 2026 is disposed.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…