Bombay High Court

SIDDHESHWAR SUNIL SHINDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 21 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted conditionally, pending the disposal of the regular bail application, provided the applicant cooperates with the investigation.

Summary

The applicant, Siddheshwar Sunil Shinde, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for offences alleged under several sections of the Sanhita and the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. He contended that his name does not appear in the FIR, that a regular bail application before the Additional Sessions Court is still pending, and that he is a student, relying on a similar bail order in Tulsi Yogesh Shinde v. State of Maharashtra. The State opposed the relief, asserting the applicant’s involvement in the crime. The Court, after hearing both sides, ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicant until the pending bail application is decided, subject to his cooperation with the investigation, and granted anticipatory bail on those conditions. The order clarified that the Sessions Court must decide the regular bail application independently of this interim relief.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an accused not named in the FIR but alleged to be involved during investigation.
Whether the pendency of a regular bail application before the Sessions Court precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether conditions such as cooperation with investigation can be imposed on anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 19(2), 351(2), 352, 482
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1), 37(3)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
pre‑arrest bail
Section 438 CrPC
pending bail application
conditional bail
criminal procedure
Maharashtra Police Act
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

Judgment

                                                    915 ABA-2221-2026.DOC
skt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2221 OF 2026

Siddheshwar Sunil Shinde                               …Applicant
            Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra                                …Respondents
2. Smt. Surekha Sanjay Jadhav


Ms. Pooja Khandekar a/w. Ritesh Kesarwani, Subhash Hulyalkar
and Pratiksha More i/b Hulyalkar & Associates, for the Applicant.
Mr. Mayur Sonavane, APP for the Respondent No. 1-State.
PSI Dilip Lokhande, Kothrud Police Station, Pune City.


                       CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATE :      21st AUGUST, 2026
P. C.:

1.       Heard Ms. Khandekar, learned counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Mr. Sonavane, learned APP appearing for the State.


2.       By this application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023), the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in

connection with C.R. No. 71 of 2026 for the offences punishable

under Sections 103, 115(2), 352,351(2), 19(2),191(2) and 190 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 37(1),

37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.




                                   Page 1 of 3
                                21st August, 2026
                                                    915 ABA-2221-2026.DOC
skt



3.    Ms. Khandekar, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant

submits that there are a total of 13 accused. She submits that the

Applicant is not involved in the alleged crime and that his name is

not mentioned in the F.I.R., however, his role has allegedly been

revealed during the course of investigation. She further submits

that the application preferred by the Applicant before the learned

Sessions Court, Pune, has not yet been decided. She therefore

submits that, pending disposal of the said application, the

Applicant may be granted bail.



4.    Ms. Khandekar, learned counsel also relies on the order of a

learned Single Judge in the case of Tulsi Yogesh Shinde Vs. The

State of Maharashtra 1 and states that the Applicant-accused

against whom the similar allegations are made has been released

on bail. She further submits that the Applicant is a student.



5.    On the other hand, learned APP strongly opposes the

application as t he Applicant is involved in the crime




1 Criminal Bail Application No. 3243 of 2026, dated 18 th August, 2026


                                   Page 2 of 3
                                21st August, 2026
                                                     915 ABA-2221-2026.DOC
skt



6.       Thus, in these circumstances, the learned Additional

Sessions Court is requested to disposed of Criminal Application No.

4019 of 2026 expeditiously.



7.       Till disposal of Criminal Application No. 4019 of 2026, no

coercive steps shall be taken against the Applicant, subject to the

condition that the Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation.



8.       It is clarified that the protection granted herein is only to

facilitate protection to the Applicant till disposal of the anticipatory

bail application by the learned Additional Sessions Court. The

learned Sessions Court shall decide the said anticipatory bail

application on its own merits, without being influenced by any of

the observations made in this order.



9.       The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the above

terms.


                                              [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                    Page 3 of 3
                                 21st August, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…