Bombay High Court

DATTATRAY BABAN KHANDAVE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 6 October 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants with specified conditions.

Summary

The applicants, Dattatray Baban Khandve and others, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 81 of 2025 alleging assault, criminal intimidation and other offences arising from a family dispute over ancestral property. The prosecution alleged that Applicant No.1 assaulted the informant with an iron rod and that Applicants No.2 and 3 also participated in the assault. The defence argued that the FIR was a retaliatory filing in a property dispute, that a charge‑sheet had already been filed in a related case, and that the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents. The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the nature of the injuries, and the lack of prior records, and concluded that the circumstances warranted the grant of anticipatory bail with strict conditions. Accordingly, the court ordered the release of each applicant on a personal bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties and imposed conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and non‑interference with witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 constitute a case where bail can be denied.
Whether the existence of a property dispute and prior charge‑sheet affect the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 118(1), 119(2), 189(2), 190, 351(2), 352
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1), 37(3)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482
property dispute
assault
criminal procedure
Maharashtra
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Maharashtra Police Act

Judgment

917.ABA-2591.26.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2591 OF 2026

Dattatray Baban Khandve & Ors. … Applicants
V/s.
Digitally signed
by PRACHI
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH
NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.10.08
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
11:54:00 +0530

______________________
Mr. Sujay Gangal, for the Applicants.
Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Dilip Palve, PSI attached to Vimantal Police Station, Pune City
present.
______________________

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 6 OCTOBER 2026
P. C. :-
1. Heard Mr. Gangal, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.

2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants are seeking pre-

arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.81 of 2025 registered with

Vimantal Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under

Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 189(2), 190, 119(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 37(1), 37(3), 135 of

the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Page 1
PPN
917.ABA-2591.26.DOC

3. The prosecution case is set out in paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d)

of the Anticipatory Bail Application. Relevant part of the same

reads as under :-

(c) Thereafter on 13/02/2025 at 21:25 the FIR vide C.R. No. 0081
of 2025 was registered with Vimantal Pune City Police Station for
offences 74, 76, 118(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS Act 2023. It is
alleged by the informant that, he is residing with her husband two
sons and father and mother- in-law. The informant is having
ancestral property at Wagholi road. It is alleged that, on 13/02/2025
the informant asked the Applicant No. 1 to remove the lock of the
main gate as it is time to leave for job. It is alleged that instead of
removing the lock, the Applicant No. 1 answered that, you do
whatever you want and he went inside his house. It is alleged that
again the Informant asked Applicant no. 1 to remove the lock at that
time, the Applicant No.1 replied the Informant that why did you
barge in to pacify quarrel between me and Lahu Khandve and at that
time Applicant No. 1 started quarreling and abusing me on the
pretext of the rent we receive on the jointly owned property. It is
alleged that at that time Applicant No.1 had torn blouse of the
informant and outraged her modesty. It is further alleged that the
Applicant No.1 assaulted the informant by means of iron rod on the
leg of the informant.

d) It is alleged that during the said episode the Applicant No. 2 and 3
were assaulting Informant by hands and also were abusing her. It is
alleged that on 12/02/2025 the brother-in- law of the Informant was
assaulted by Applicant No.1, who had sustained injuries on his face
and was treated at Sasoon Hospital. Thus, the Informant filed the
F.I.R vide CR No. 0081 of 2025 registered with Vimantal Pune City
Police Station for offences 74,76,118(1), 115 (2), 351(2), 352 of
BNS Act 2023.

4. It is the contention of Mr. Gangal, learned counsel appearing

for the Applicants that the Applicants and family of the First

Informant are close relatives and there is a dispute between two

Page 2
PPN
917.ABA-2591.26.DOC

real brothers regarding ancestral property. He submits that

Applicant No.3 has filed F.I.R. being C.R. No.80 of 2025 on 13

February 2025 against the First Informant as also other members

of the family of First Informant. As a counter-blast, the present

F.I.R. has been filed on the next day. He submits that charge-sheet

is already filed. He submits that charge-sheet has also been filed in

C.R. No.80 of 2025 registered by Applicant No.3. He submits that

there are no other antecedents.

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

Application. He submits that the offence is very serious.

6. Perusal of the record shows that there is a dispute between

two real brothers i.e., Dattatray Baban Khandave and Ashok

Khandave. Even as per the prosecution case, incident took place as

there is some dispute which is concerning ancestral property. The

injuries are simple in nature. There are no other antecedents.

7. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out

for grant of Anticipatory Bail by passing the following order :-

ORDER

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicants in connection

with C.R. No.81 of 2025 registered with Vimantal

Page 3
PPN
917.ABA-2591.26.DOC

Police Station, District Pune, the Applicants are

directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond

in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two

solvent sureties each in the like amount.

(b) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police

Station as and when called and co-operate with the

investigation.

and residential address to the Investigating Officer

and shall keep the same updated, in case of any

change thereto.

(d) The Applicants 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.

(e) The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution

evidence and shall not contact or influence the

Complainant or any witness in any manner.

Page 4
PPN
917.ABA-2591.26.DOC

8. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose

of considering the anticipatory bail application.

9. Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Page 5
PPN

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.