Bombay High Court

RADHIKA KIRAN JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The anticipatory bail application was disposed of because custodial interrogation was not required.

Summary

Radhika Kiran Jadhav applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, fearing arrest in connection with Crime No.841 of 2024 involving multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed the bail, but the investigating officer informed the court that custodial interrogation of the applicant was not required. Relying on this statement, the court held that there was no necessity to detain the applicant. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of, effectively granting bail. The decision hinged on the lack of need for custodial interrogation and the discretionary power under Section 482.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 of the BNSS
Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in Crime No.841 of 2024

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115, 118, 119, 135, 189, 190, 191, 324, 333, 351, 352, 74

Subjects

anticipatory bail
custodial interrogation
Section 482
criminal procedure
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
bail jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                               1/2
                                                                                 40- ABA-2457-2025 (CR).DOC


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

                                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2457 OF 2025


                         Radhika Kiran Jadhav                                        ….Applicant
                               VERSUS
                         The State Of Maharashtra and Anr.                           ....Respondents

                         _________________________________________________________________


                         Mr. Shankar Katkar a/w Ms. Tanaya Doke, for Applicant.
                         Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State.
                         API, Mr. Vinod Vishwanath Laturkar, Mangalvedha Police Station, present.
                         _________________________________________________________________



                                             CORAM        :   ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
                                             DATE         :   22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
SHANTANU
SHANKARSA
DHUDUM                   P.C.
Digitally signed by
SHANTANU
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
Date: 2026.09.22
20:19:18 +0530
                         1.          Heard Mr. Shankar Katkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant

                         and Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State.


                         2.          Notice was issued to the Respondent No.2 on 1st September

                         2026.


                         3.          Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State, on

                         instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that the Investigating

                         Officer has served Respondent No.2 and that Respondent No.2 has

                         communicated that he has no interest in contesting this proceeding.


                Shantanu S. Dhudum
                                                2/2
                                                                40- ABA-2457-2025 (CR).DOC


         4.          By the present Application filed under Section 482 of the

         Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the

         Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with

         Crime No.841 of 2024 registered at Mangalvedha Police Station, for the

         offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1),

         115(2), 74, 119(1), 333, 324(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 135 of the

         Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).


         5.          Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State, on

         instructions from the Investigating Officer investigating Crime No.841 of

         2024, submits that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not

         required in Crime No.841 of 2024.


         6.          In view of the statement made by Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned A.P.P.

         for Respondent No.1 – State, that the custodial interrogation of the

         Applicant (Radhika Kiran Jadhav) is not required in Crime No.841 of 2024,

         Mr. Shankar Katkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that the

         apprehension of the Applicant are allayed and this Application may be

         disposed of.


         7.          By taking on record the statement made by Mr. Nitin B. Patil,

         learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State, that the custodial interrogation

         of the Applicant is not required in Crime No.841 of 2024, Criminal

         Anticipatory Bail Application No.2457 of 2025 is disposed of.


                                                           ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Shantanu S. Dhudum

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…