Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

RAJANIKANT S/O SURYAKANT GAIKWAD AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal
Allowed

Holding

The court confirmed the anticipatory bail order with additional conditions and disposed of the application.

Summary

The applicants, Rajanikant and Sanjay Gaikwad, filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with FIR No. 526 of 2025 alleging they are the original owners of the disputed land. The State contended that the applicants had misrepresented facts, including claiming certain relatives were dead and using a fictitious name for the property. The trial court initially granted anticipatory bail on execution of a Rs.50,000 bond with sureties and directed the applicants to appear before the police as required. Upon further hearing, both parties agreed that the applicants would cooperate with the investigation, and the court affirmed the earlier order, imposing additional conditions prohibiting inducement, evidence tampering, and mandating the provision of residential details. The anticipatory bail application was consequently disposed of with the stipulated conditions.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate scope of conditions that may be imposed on an anticipatory bail order?
  • Whether the applicants should be mandated to appear before the investigating officer as a condition of bail?
  • Whether restrictions on inducement, threat, promise, and tampering with evidence are permissible conditions under anticipatory bail.

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Section 438
  • bail conditions
  • investigation cooperation
  • evidence tampering
  • inducement prohibition

Judgment

                                                      52A-i-ABA-2322-2025 (CR).docx


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 2322 OF 2025

1. Rajanikant s/o. Suryakant Gaikwad &                … Applicants
2. Sanjay s/o. Suryakant Gaikwad
                    Versus.
The State Of Maharashtra And Another                  … Respondents

                                        -----
Mr. Sandip R. Andhale (Through V.C.) for the Applicants.
Dr. A.A. Takalkar, A.P.P. for the Respondents-State.
Mr. Shubham Visekar i/b. Mr. Ganesh Shiraskar for the Intervenor.
                                       -------

                                 Coram :       ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                                 Date      :   24th August 2026.

PER COURT :


1.    Heard Mr. Sandip Andhale, learned Advocate for the Applicants, Dr.

Takalkar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State and Mr. Shubham Visekar,

learned Advocate for the Intervenor.


2.    On 19th September 2025, the following order was passed :

      “1.      Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for
      the Respondent – State.
      2.     It is the contention of learned APP that the Applicants have
      shown their relatives as dead when they were alive at the time of



osk                               1 of 4
                                                         52A-i-ABA-2322-2025 (CR).docx


      alleged incident, and she seeks time to take instructions as to whether
      those individuals have filed any complaint or not.
      3.        The allegations against the Applicant are that they have shown
      the property in a fictitious name. However, it appears from the record
      that the Applicants are original owners of the land.
      4.        Considering the allegations in the F.I.R., I pass the following
      order:
                                         ORDER
           i.       Till the next date, in the event of arrest, the
                  Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with
                  the C.R. No.526 of 2025 registered with Karmala
                  Police Station, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum
                  of Rs.50,000/- each with one or two sureties in the
                  like amount.
           ii. The Applicant shall attend the concerned police
                  station as and when required.


      5.        Learned counsel for the Intervenor seeks leave to file
      intervention application. Leave granted.


      6.        Stand over to 7th October, 2025.”




3.    Mr. Sandip R. Andhale, learned Advocate for the Applicants, states that

the Applicants have appeared before the Investigating Officer at Karmala

Police Station, District Solapur Rural and have cooperated with the

investigation of Crime No. 526 of 2025. He states that the Applicants shall

continue to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the


osk                                   2 of 4
                                                    52A-i-ABA-2322-2025 (CR).docx


Investigating Officer at Karmala Police Station, District Solapur Rural, as and

when required.


4.    Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State, on

instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that the Applicants have

appeared before the Investigating Officer and have cooperated in the

investigation of Crime No. 526 of 2025. She submits that the investigation is

ongoing and that the Applicants may be required to appear before the

Investigating Officer for further investigation. She therefore requests that a

condition be imposed upon the Applicants to appear before the Investigating

Officer as and when directed. She further submits on instructions from the

Investigating Officer, that custodial interrogation of the Applicants in Crime

No. 526 of 2025 is not required.


5.    Mr Shubham Visekar, learned Advocate for the Intervenor, opposes this

Application and prays for its rejection.


6.    Mr. Sandip R. Andhale, learned Advocate for the Applicants, on

instructions, states that the Applicants shall appear before the Investigating

Officer, Karmala Police Station in Crime No. 526 of 2025, as and when

required by the Investigating Officer. The said statement is accepted.


7.    In view of the above, the order dated 19 th September 2025 is confirmed

with the following additional conditions :


osk                                3 of 4
                                                                                52A-i-ABA-2322-2025 (CR).docx


                        ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS :


                              “(a) The Applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer,

                                    Karmala Police Station, District Solapur Rural, as and when

                                    required by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 526 of 2025.


                              (b)   The Applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

                                    inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with

                                    the facts of the case to dissuade that person from disclosing the

                                    facts to the Court or any police officer.


                              (c)   The Applicants shall not tamper with evidence in any manner.


                              (d)   The Applicants shall provide the Investigation Officer with their

                                    residential address along with proof, their contact numbers and

                                    must inform the Investigating Officer of any changes to this

                                    information from time to time. ”


                        8.    Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2322 of 2025 is disposed of.




                                                              [ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
           Digitally signed
           by OMKAR
OMKAR      SHIVAHAR
SHIVAHAR   KUMBHAKARN
KUMBHAKARN Date:
           2026.08.25
           10:43:40 +0530




                        osk                               4 of 4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.