DATTATRAY BALA WALUNJversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                        907-ABA-375-2026.DOC




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.375 OF 2026
ARJUN                 Dattatray Bala Walunj                                …Applicant
VITTHAL                     Versus
KUDHEKAR
                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                      …Respondents
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.09.23
20:38:54 +0530
                      Ms. Shital Tanpure, for the Applicant.
                      Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for Respondent No.1-State.
                      Mr. Sachin Hande, for Respondent No.2.
                      PSI S. N. Patil, Alephata Police Station, Pune Rural, present.


                                            CORAM:       MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                            DATED:       22 SEPTEMBER 2026
                      PC:-


                      1.      Heard Ms. Tanpure, learned Counsel appearing for the

                      Applicant, Mr. Ghag, learned APP, for Respondent No.1-State of

                      Maharashtra and Mr. Hande, learned Counsel appearing for

                      Respondent No.2.


                      2.      By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482

                      of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , the Applicant is

                      seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.78 of 2025

                      registered with Alephata Police Station, Pune Rural, for the

                      offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(3), 352, 351(2)

                      and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.




                                                      Page 1
                      Arjun
                                                   907-ABA-375-2026.DOC




3.       The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.2 of the

Order dated 16th April 2025 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Junnar, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune in Criminal Bail

Application No.55 of 2025, which reads as under:


        “2-     The FIR was lodged on 4/4/2025 by Asmita
        Akshay Deokar, originally residing at Laxminagar,
        Alephata, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune, alleging that her
        father-in-law Vitthal Tukaram Deokar was the owner of
        the property bearing Gat No. 361/1, situated at Mauje
        Alephata, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune, admeasuring about 37
        R. After his death, the property devolved upon his son
        Akshay Vitthal Deokar, who was the husband of the
        informant. The rest of the legal representatives executed
        a relinquishment deed in favor of Akshay Deokar, making
        him the exclusive owner of the property. In the year
        2020, he took a loan of Rs. 35,00,000/- from Gomata
        Sahakari Patsanstha by mortgaging the said property. At
        the same time, one of his friends, Saurabh Doke's wife
        Roshani Doke, also took a loan of Rs. 35,00,000/- on the
        same property. Thus, the property was mortgaged for Rs.
        70,00,000/-. After taking the loan, both borrowers failed
        to pay the installments and repeatedly committed
        default. The total outstanding amount was Rs.
        1,24,00,000/-. The husband of the informant died on
        27/5/2023. After his death, the Patsanstha followed up
        with the informant for repayment of the loan and
        decided to auction the property for recovery of the
        amount. The informant decided to sell the land, but no
        one came forward to purchase it. She then called her
        father, and both of them approached the Chairman of the
        Patsanstha. On his advice, they paid Rs. 32,00,000/- to
        halt the auction on 31/3/2024, and the auction was
        stopped. The informant and her father were in the
        process of selling the mortgaged property to settle the
        outstanding loan amount. However, the informant's
        mother-in-law, Aruna Deokar, objected to the sale,




                                  Page 2
Arjun
                                                    907-ABA-375-2026.DOC




        insisting that her name be mutated in the 7/12 extract
        before any sale could take place. The informant further
        alleged that it was the applicant who had influenced her
        mother-in-law to raise the objections. The informant and
        her father requested the applicant not to create obstacles
        in the sale of the property. However, he did not listen and
        called the informant's father to his office, where he
        demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- from him. The applicant also
        threatened that unless he receives the amount, he would
        not allow the sale of the property. He further threatened
        them, saying, तु मच्या मु लीच्या जमिमनीचा व्यवहार हा मला
        सां मि तल्यामि वाय करायचा नाही, नाहीतर ाठ माझ्‌या ी आहे .
        The informant then paid Rs. 3,00,000/-in cash to the
        applicant. Thereafter, the applicant sold the property to
        one Baban Dagadu Gunjal, resident of Belhe, Tal. Junnar,
        Dist. Pune, for Rs. 1,22,00,000/-. The informant then
        repaid the outstanding amount to Gomata Patsanstha. At
        the time of handing over possession of the property, the
        applicant raised another objection, demanded more
        money, and threatened them with dire consequences.
        With no other option, the informant lodged a report
        against the accused for both of these incidents.”

4.       Ms. Tanpure, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits that

the allegation is that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash was paid

to the Applicant by the First Informant. She submits that although

the said contention is incorrect to show the bonafides, the

Applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- before the

learned Sessions Court. She submits that a false FIR was lodged

against the Applicant. She further submits that there are no other

antecedents except one criminal case registered in the year 2010,

in which the Applicant was acquitted.




                                  Page 3
Arjun
                                                  907-ABA-375-2026.DOC




5.      On the other hand, Mr. Ghag, learned APP, for Respondent

No.1-State, submits that the offence is very serious and, therefore,

custodial interrogation is necessary. Mr. Hande, learned Counsel

for Respondent No.2 also raises the same contention.


6.      Perusal of the record shows that the dispute is concerning

the immovable property and the allegation is that an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the Applicant in cash. The said amount

has been deposited before the learned Sessions Court by the

Applicant to show his bonafides.


7.      There are no other criminal antecedents except, the

antecedent of the year 2010, in which the Applicant was acquitted.


8.      Ms. Tanpure, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits that

the Applicant will cooperate with the investigation.


9.      Mr. Hande, learned Counsel, submits that if this Court is

inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail, then

stringent conditions be imposed.


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

for grant of anticipatory bail by imposing conditions.




                                Page 4
Arjun
                                                  907-ABA-375-2026.DOC




11.     In view thereof, the following Order is passed:


                               ORDER

        (a)   In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Dattatray Bala

              Walunj in connection with CR No.78 of 2025

              registered with Alephata Police Station, Pune Rural,

              the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his

              furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with

              one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

        (b)   The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police

              Station, twice in a month i.e. on the first and third

              Monday of every month, between 11:00 am and 02:00

              pm, till conclusion of the trial.

        (c)   The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and

              residential address to the Investigating Officer and

              shall keep the same updated, in case of any change

              thereto.

        (d)   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




                                  Page 5
Arjun
                                                   907-ABA-375-2026.DOC




              to any Police personnel.

        (e)   The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution

              evidence and shall not contact or influence the

              Complainant or any witness in any manner.

        (f)   The Applicant shall not leave India without prior

              permission of the Court.


12.     The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.




                                           [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                 Page 6
Arjun