Bombay High Court

SACHIN SUBHASH GHULE AND ANRversusTHE STAE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 6 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

Anticipatory bail was granted on condition of a personal bond and sureties, with no requirement for custodial interrogation, subject to the trial court’s independent adjudication of the merits.

Summary

The applicant, Vaishali Anil Tikam, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a criminal case (Crime No. 40 of 2026) involving alleged fraud and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co‑accused forged documents to sell a property of a first informant, with the applicant as purchaser. The applicant contended that the dispute had been settled through a Compromise Decree filed in a civil suit, and therefore custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State, after reviewing the compromise decree, agreed that the matter appeared settled. The Court, noting the settlement, granted anticipatory bail on condition of a personal bond and sureties, directing the applicant to cooperate with police as required, while reserving the trial court’s right to decide the case on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the parties have settled the dispute through a compromise decree.
Whether custodial interrogation is required in a case where a civil compromise has been effected.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
custodial interrogation
compromise decree
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure

Judgment

                                                                               39-ABA-2064-2026.doc


                   Tikam


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2064 OF 2026

VAISHALI                                  Sachin Subhash Ghule And Anr
ANIL                                                 VERSUS
TIKAM
                                             The Stae Of Maharashtra
Digitally signed
                       _________________________________________________________________
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:                  Mr. Shantaram Patil a/w. Ms. Nishita Joshi i/by Shrikrishna Ganbavale,
2026.08.11
12:28:41 +0530         Advocate for Applicants.
                       Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
                       _________________________________________________________________

                                                           CORAM       :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                           DATE        :   6th AUGUST, 2026
                       P.C. :

                       1.         Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP.

                       2.         The Applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 40 of 2026

                       registered with Fursungi Police Station, Dist. Pune for the offences

                       punishable under Sections 3(5), 340(2), 338, 336(2), 316(2) and 318(4)

                       of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS).

                       3.         It is prosecution’s case that during period May, 2025 to August,

                       2025, Applicant and co-accused obtained power of attorney from the first

                       informant and by preparing false documents, sold the property of the first

                       informant. The Applicant is the purchaser of the said property.

                       4.         It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that matter

                       is settled before the trial Court and Compromise Pursis was filed in the



                                                       Page 1 of 3
                                                            39-ABA-2064-2026.doc


Tikam


    Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division,Pune in Spl. Civil Suit No. 2365 of

    2025 and the matter is settled between the parties.            He tendered

    Compromise Pursis Cum Settlement. It is on record and marked ‘X’ for the

    purpose of identification. He submits that considering this fact, custodial

    interrogation of the Applicant is not required and requested to allow the

    Application.

    5.         Learned APP, after going through the Compromise Pursis,

    submits that it appears that matter is settled between the parties.

    6.         I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the FIR and

    documents produced on record. As the 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. 40 of 2026 registered with Fursungi 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

    of.


                                     Page 2 of 3
                                                            39-ABA-2064-2026.doc


Tikam


    7.         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.

    8.         All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.




                                                   (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                     Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…