Bombay High Court
SOUDAMINI BEHERAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted subject to a cash bond and a strict undertaking not to deal with Gutka or related tobacco products.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Soudamini Behera, who was alleged to have dealt in contraband Gutka, violating sections of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as IPC section 328. The applicant argued that all offences except the IPC 328 charge were bailable and that the Supreme Court was still examining the applicability of IPC 328 to similar cases. The State opposed bail, seeking a stringent undertaking similar to that imposed in Abhijit Jitendra Lolage v. State of Maharashtra. The court noted the pending Supreme Court decision on IPC 328, found no criminal antecedents, and accepted the applicant’s undertaking not to deal with Gutka or related products. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a cash bond, multiple conditions, and the undertaking, while reserving the right to cancel bail upon violation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when one of the charges is a non‑bailable offence (IPC 328) pending Supreme Court clarification.
- Whether the court may impose an undertaking not to deal with Gutka and related products as a condition of bail.
- Whether the absence of criminal antecedents justifies granting anticipatory bail despite serious allegations.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 123, 223, 274, 275
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — s. 26, 27(2)(e), 59
- Indian Penal Code — s. 328
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- non‑bailable offence
- Food Safety Act
- Gutka
- undertaking
- bail conditions
- High Court
- Maharashtra
Judgment
924-ABA-2555-2026.DOC
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARJUN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2555 OF 2026
VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR
Soudamini Behera …Applicant
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL Versus
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.09.24 The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
20:50:43 +0530
Mr. Rahul Mishra a/w Roshni Vishwakarma, for the Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State.
API Rajesh Khandave, Uran Police Station, Navi Mumbai, present.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 24 SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant and Mr. Ghag, learned APP, for the Respondent-State.
2. By the present Anticipatory Bail Application, the Applicant is
seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.89 of 2025
registered on 27th April 2025 with the Uran Police Station, Navi
Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 26, 59 and
27(2)(e) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Sections
123, 274, 223 and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(“BNS”).
Page 1
924-ABA-2555-2026.DOC
Arjun
3. As per the prosecution case, the Applicant was found dealing
with contraband material Gutka which is unsafe and dangerous for
the health of people.
4. It is the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel that
except the offence under Section 123 of BNS i.e. 328 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, all other offences are bailable offences. He
submits that as far as Section 328 of IPC is concerned, the
Supreme Court is considering the applicability of Section 328 of
IPC to the similar cases. He therefore, states that the anticipatory
bail be granted.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Ghag, learned APP, strongly opposes
the Anticipatory Bail Application. He, therefore, submits that the
Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected.
6. Learned APP submits that if this Court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail then the Applicant be directed to give an
undertaking in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in the
case of Abhijit Jitendra Lolage vs State of Maharashtra 1, and more
1 SLP (Crl.) Diary No.2806/2023
Page 2
924-ABA-2555-2026.DOC
Arjun
particularly relies on the following condition imposed by the
Supreme Court in case of similar offences :-
“It is deemed appropriate to impose the
condition – “I, Abhijeet Jitendra Lolage do
undertake to not deal with Gutkha, that is, Pan
Masala with Tobacco”. In case, the appellant –
Abhijeet Jitendra Lolage violates the terms and
conditions of bail, including the undertaking
imposed, it would be open to the prosecution to
seek cancellation of bail ”.
(Emphasis added)
Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, after
taking instructions, submits that the Applicants will give the
undertaking.
The Supreme Court in the said Order has imposed the above
condition in case of similar offence.
7. Perusal of the record shows that except the offence under
Section 328 of IPC the other offences are bailable offences. The
issue whether Section 328 of IPC will apply to similar cases is
pending before the Supreme Court. As the Applicant is ready to
give the undertaking that they will not deal with Gutkha and
Page 3
924-ABA-2555-2026.DOC
Arjun
Tobacco products in any manner whatsoever, the case is made out
for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Applicant tenders
undertaking dated 24th September 2026. The said undertaking is
accepted.
9. There are no criminal antecedents against the Applicant.
10. In view thereof, the following Order is passed:
ORDER
(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Soudamini
Behera in connection with C.R. No.89 of 2025
registered with the Uran Police Station, Navi Mumbai,
the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her
furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each
with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.
(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when called and shall cooperate with
the investigation.
(c) The Applicant to abide by the undertaking given to
Page 4
924-ABA-2555-2026.DOC
Arjun
the effect that she will not deal with banned products
i.e. Gutkha, Pan Masala with Tobacco products, in any
manner whatsoever. The Applicant to strictly comply
with the said undertaking.
(d) The Applicant shall furnish her cell phone number and
residential address to the Investigating Officer and
shall keep the same updated, in case of any change
thereto.
(e) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or
to any Police personnel.
(f) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not contact or influence the
Complainant or any witness in any manner.
(g) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
(h) In case, the Applicant violates the terms and
conditions of bail, including the undertaking, it would
Page 5
924-ABA-2555-2026.DOC
Arjun
be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.
11. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 6
Checking your session…