Bombay High Court
GEETA RAJESH PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED
Holding
The court held that the applicant's presence does not amount to obstruction and, given her medical condition, she is not a flight risk, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Geeta Rajesh Patil, who was charged under Sections 132, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bombay National Security Act, 2023 and Section 3 of the Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1922 for allegedly obstructing police service of a notice. The obstruction was primarily attributed to her husband, Raj Bhagvan Patil, who had already been released on bail. The applicant argued that she was merely present at her home, was two months pregnant at the time, and has since suffered a miscarriage, making her unlikely to flee. The State opposed, contending her presence constituted participation in the obstruction. The Court held that mere presence does not amount to an offence, noted her health condition, and ordered that she be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bond and surety, directing her to cooperate with the investigating agency.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant's mere presence at the scene constitutes obstruction under the charged offences.
- Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or risk of tampering with evidence.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the applicant's health condition and the nature of the allegations.
Legislation cited
- Bombay National Security Act, 2023 — s. 132, 3(5), 351(2)
- Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1922 — s. 3
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- obstruction of police
- miscarriage
- personal liberty
- Section 132 BNS
- Section 351 BNS
- Incitement to Disaffection Act
- bond and surety
Judgment
919-ABA-2679-2026.doc
vaishnavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2679 OF 2026
Geeta Rajesh Patil ...Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Amit Icham a/w Mr. Chaitanya Purankar, for the Applicant.
Ms.Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. G.D. Chitte, API, P.I. Narpoli Police Station, Thane, is
present.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for applicant as well as learned
APP for respondent.
2. The applicant has filed the instant application seeking the
pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 961 of 2026 registered with Narpoli Police
Station for offence under Section 132, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 read
with Section 3 of (Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1922).
3. The FIR is registered on the basis of report lodged by a
Police official alleging that on 26th August 2026, the accused No. 2-
Raj Bhagvan Patil had obstructed the Police Officials at the time of
1/3
919-ABA-2679-2026.doc
effecting service of a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS upon him, at
his house. On the basis of these allegations, the offences came to be
registered against this applicant and her husband. This applicant who
is wife of Raj Bhagvan Patil has been arraigned as accused on the
ground that she was also present at the relevant time and she has
joined her husband in creating obstruction.
4. The learned counsel for applicant submits that the
allegations of causing obstruction are only against her husband Raj
Bhagvan Patil. It is submitted that the said accused person has been
already released on bail. He further states that this applicant was
pregnant by two months at the relevant time and now she has suffered
miscarriage and as such there is no question of her fleeing away.
5. The learned APP for respondent has opposed the
application and submitted that this applicant was also present when
the obstruction was made by the main accused person and therefore
she has been arraigned as accused.
6. Perused the FIR and the documents filed on record.
Considering the nature of allegations in FIR it appears that the main
role of alleged obstruction is against the applicant’s husband. Her
mere presence at her own house cannot be considered to be an act of
causing obstruction or committing any of the alleged offences. Further
considering the fact that the applicant has now undergone
miscarriage, she is not likely to abscond and her presence can be
2/3
919-ABA-2679-2026.doc
secured by directing her to attend Police Station. In view of the above
aspects, the personal liberty of the applicant needs to be protected.
7. Hence I pass the following order.
: ORDER :
(i) Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with
Crime No. 961 of 2026 registered with Narpoli Police Station
for offence under Section 132, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 read
with Section 3 of (Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1922), she
shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one solvent surety
of the like amount.
(iii)The applicant is directed to attend the Investigating Agency
as and when called upon by the Investigating Agency.
(iv) The applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency
during investigation and trial.
8. The Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of in
above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.