Bombay High Court
SUSHIL ANKUSH MANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court disposed of the anticipatory bail application, holding that since the applicant is already out on bail and any arrest can only occur after judicial permission, there is no immediate apprehension warranting anticipatory bail.
Summary
The applicant filed an anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with serious IPC and POCSO offences. The State argued that the applicant had already been released on bail by the JMFC because the police had not complied with Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which requires written communication of the grounds of arrest. The State further contended that, following the Supreme Court’s directive in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, arrest can only occur after the JMFC grants permission, rendering the anticipatory bail unnecessary. The court noted that the applicant is presently out on bail and any future arrest would be subject to the same procedural safeguards, including an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the court disposed of the anticipatory bail application, finding no immediate apprehension of arrest.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the applicant is already released on bail due to non‑compliance with Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the requirement to supply grounds of arrest in writing, as mandated by Section 48 and reiterated by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, negates the need for anticipatory bail.
- Whether the possibility of future arrest, pending permission from the JMFC, creates a sufficient apprehension to justify anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 48
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354, 354-D, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 17, 4, 5(f), 5(l), 6, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 48
- grounds of arrest
- natural justice
- non‑compliance
- bail
- POCSO
- IPC
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
910 ABA-2505-2026.DOC
skt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2505 OF 2026
Sushil Ankush Mane …Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Prashant Hagare a/w. Mr. Utkarsh R. Pondkule, for the
Applicant.
Mr. S.V. Walve, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Ayush Pasbola a/w. Mrunal Bhide, Basavaraj Yadav for the First
Informant.
API Shrikant More, Kharadi Police Station Pune.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P. C.:
1. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the Applicant seeking pre-arrest
bail in connection with C.R. No. 243 of 2026 registered with
Kharadi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under
Sections 354, 354-D, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 5(f), 5(l), 6, 8, 12 and 17 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO
Act).
Page 1 of 4
17th September, 2026
910 ABA-2505-2026.DOC
skt
2. However, Mr. Walve, learned APP states that the Applicant
has already been released on bail by order dated 18 th July 2026
passed by learned JMFC, Pune in Remand Report No. 243 of 2026,
Police Station Kharadi, Pune as there is non-compliance of Section
48 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as the grounds of arrest
have not been communicated to the relatives of the Applicant.
Learned APP points out Paragraph 65 of decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra 1,
which reads as under :
“65. It goes without saying that if the abovesaid
schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing
is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal
entitling the release of the arrestee. On such release, an
application for remand or custody, if required, will be
moved along with the reasons and necessity for the
same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in
writing setting forth the Explanation for non-supply
thereof within the above stipulated schedule. On receipt
of such an application, the Magistrate shall decide the
same expeditiously and preferably within a week of
1 2026 (1) SCC 500
Page 2 of 4
17th September, 2026
910 ABA-2505-2026.DOC
skt
submission thereof by adhering to the principles of
natural justice.”
(Emphasis added)
3. Mr. Walve, learned APP, submits that, in compliance with the
directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 65 of Mihir
Rajesh Shah (supra), the State of Maharashtra has filed an
application/report seeking permission to arrest the Applicant.
Thus, according to him, the present Anticipatory Bail Application
is, in fact, not necessary, as unless permission to arrest is granted
by the learned JMFC, the Applicant cannot be arrested.
4. Mr. Hagare, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant,
points out the order dated 17th August 2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Anticipatory Bail Application
No. 3983 of 2026, whereby the said application came to be
rejected.
5. However, as the Applicant has already been released on bail
by the learned JMFC by order dated 18 th July 2026 for non-
compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS, and an application
Page 3 of 4
17th September, 2026
910 ABA-2505-2026.DOC
skt
seeking permission to arrest the Applicant has already been filed,
there is no apprehension that the Applicant would be arrested
unless and until such permission is granted by the learned JMFC.
6. Needless to observe that such permission will be granted
only after adhering to the principles of natural justice and
affording an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant.
7. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the above
terms.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 4 of 4
17th September, 2026
Checking your session…