Bombay High Court
RAVIKANT SIDDHAPA PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
In the absence of specific allegations against the applicants, anticipatory bail was granted and custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary.
Summary
The applicants sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 26 of 2025, alleged to involve offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to cheating and conspiracy. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, as family members of the principal accused, were present during a meeting with the informant and participated in a scheme to obtain money by promising a liquor licence. The applicants contended that no specific allegations were made against them beyond their presence, and therefore bail should be granted. The Court examined the FIR and found that the main allegations targeted the principal accused, with no concrete charges against the applicants, and held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants upon execution of a bond, directing them to cooperate with police as required, while noting that the trial court would decide the case on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to persons who were merely present at the scene of an alleged conspiracy without specific allegations against them.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 335, 336(2), 336(3), 342(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- conspiracy
- cheating
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- bail order
Judgment
15-ABA-1694-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1694 OF 2025
1. Dhaneshwari Mallikarjun Patane
2. Mallikarjun Vijaykumar Patane ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
with
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2904 OF 2025
Ravikant Siddhapa Patil ….Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Ms. Seema Dighe i/b. Mr. Priyal Sarda, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State in ABA/1694/2025.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State in ABA/2904/2025.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 17th JULY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. These two applications arise out of the same crime, hence, I am
deciding the said applications by this common order.
2. The applicants are apprehending arrest in Crime No. 26 of
2025, registered with Yeola City Police Station, District Nashik, for the
offences punishable under Sections 342(2), 336(3), 336(2), 335, 319(2),
318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Digitally
signed by
3. It is prosecution’s case that during the period from 17th July
SHUBHADA
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
SHANKAR KADAM
KADAM Date:
2026.07.18 2023 to November 2024, the applicants and co-accused, in conspiracy,
16:04:59
+0530
Page 1 of 3
15-ABA-1694-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
lured the first informant by telling him that they would procure liquor and
wine license for him, and thereby obtained ₹1,81,23,141/- from him and
cheated him.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the
main allegations are against the co-accused. The allegations against the
applicants are only that they were present at the time of the meeting of the
first informant with accused No. 1- Siddhappa Patil, and except that, there
are no allegations against the applicants, and requested to allow the
applications.
5. It is contention of learned APP that the applicants are family
members of accused No. 1 and they were were present at the time of the
meeting of the first informant with accused No. 1 Siddhappa Patil. The
applicants were in conspiracy with accused No. 1 and cheated the first
informant. Considering the allegations against the applicants, their
custodial interrogation is required, and requested to reject the applications.
6. I have heard both learned counsel, perused FIR and documents
produced on record. The main allegations are against accused No. 1-
Siddhappa Patil. In the FIR, it is alleged that when accused No. 1 was not
picking up the phone calls of the first informant, the first informant went
to the house of accused No. 1, and at that time, the applicants were
Page 2 of 3
15-ABA-1694-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
present there and they told the first informant that his work would be done
by accused No. 1. Except this, there are no specific allegations against the
applicants. To prove the role of the applicants in the crime, evidence is
required. Considering these facts, the custodial interrogation of the
applicants is not required, and I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) In the event of arrest, the applicants viz. Dhaneshwari
Mallikarjun Patane, Mallikarjun Vijaykumar Patane and
Ravikant Siddhapa Patil be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 26 of
2025, registered with Yeola City Police Station, District Nashik,
on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one
or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
The applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed off.
6. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…