Bombay High Court

CHETAN DATTATRAYA KHANDEKAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

Successive anticipatory bail applications without a substantive change in facts or new material are not maintainable and must be dismissed.

Summary

The applicants, Chetan D. Khandekar and an associate, were charged with robbery, assault with a sickle, and possession of illegal arms, alleged to have occurred on 13-14 June 2025, resulting in the theft of Rs.7 lakh. They filed a first anticipatory bail application which they later withdrew, and a second anticipatory bail application that was rejected by the Sessions Court. Undeterred, they filed a second anticipatory bail application before the High Court, arguing that there is no bar to successive applications. The Court examined whether a subsequent anticipatory bail petition can be entertained without any substantive change in facts or new material, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu. Finding no change in circumstances and noting the gravity of the offences, the Court held that the application was not maintainable and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether a second or successive anticipatory bail application can be entertained under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita when the earlier application was withdrawn or rejected and there is no material change in facts.
Whether the gravity of the offences and the need for custodial interrogation preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 4
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 126(2), 309(4), 324(4), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
successive applications
Section 482
abuse of process
gravity of offence
criminal procedure

Judgment

904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 413 OF 2026

Chetan Dattatraya Khandekar & Anr. … Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Another … Respondents

----
Mr. Anand Patil for the Applicants.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, A.P.P. for the Respondents-State.
-------

Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

Date : 25th August 2026.

PER COURT :

1. Heard Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr.

Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State.

2. By this Second Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants seeks pre-arrest bail in

connection with Crime No. 316 of 2025, dated 14 th June 2025, registered

with Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli, for the offences punishable

under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 309(4), 126(2), 324(4)

and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

osk 1 of 7
904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx

3. From the FIR, the prosecution case, in brief, is that on the night of 13 th

June 2025, at around 10 p.m., the Informant and his brother-in-law were

returning from Vijapur (Karnataka) after procuring groceries, carrying

Rs.7,00,000/- in cash, kept in a plastic carry bag under the driver’s seat of

their Bolero Pickup bearing No. MH12/VT-7848. In the early morning of 14 th

June 2025, around 4:00 a.m., while passing through the Satara-Vita-Tasgaon-

Bedag Mangsuli road, another Bolero Pickup (MH-10/DT-5417) overtook and

obstructed the Informant’s vehicle by stopping sideways in front. The

Informant identified the said vehicle as belonging to Chetan D. Khandekar

(accused No.1). Soon thereafter, a swift car arrived and stopped near the

vehicle. The Applicants, who are known to the Informant, got down from the

car armed with a sickle, along with two unidentified accomplices. They

ruthlessly attacked the Informant’s vehicle with the weapon, causing the

Informant and his brother-in-law to flee into a sugarcane field out of fear for

their lives. Thereafter, the Applicants and their unidentified accomplices fled

the scene with Rs.7,00,000/- in cash from the Informant’s vehicle.

4. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State, raises a

preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Application. He submits

that filing this Second Application for Anticipatory Bail after the dismissal of

the First Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203 of 2025 by this

Court is an abuse of the process of law. He states that the Applicants are re-

osk 2 of 7
904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx

agitating the matter on the same set of facts. He therefore seeks dismissal of

this Application, which, according to Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, the learned APP, is

devoid of any substance, with costs.

5. In response to the objection raised by Mr. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P., Mr.

Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits that there is no bar

to filing a second Anticipatory Bail Application before either the Sessions

Court or this Court. He therefore submits that the request made by the

Applicants in this Anticipatory Bail Application be considered.

6. Perused the records.

7. Records reveal that upon registration of Crime No. 316 of 2025 at the

Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli, the Applicants, apprehending

arrest, approached the Sessions Court, Sangli, for pre-arrest bail by filing

Criminal Bail Application No. 455 of 2025, which was rejected on 14 th July

2025.

8. On the dismissal of Criminal Bail Application No. 455 of 2025, the

Applicants were before this Court seeking pre-arrest bail by way of Criminal

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203 of 2025. This was the First pre-arrest

bail application before this Court.

9. On 28th January 2025, Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203

osk 3 of 7
904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx

of 2025 was disposed of. The order dated 28 th January 2026 reads as

follows:-

“1. After arguing at length on merit, when this Court was not
inclined to grant anticipatory bail, learned Advocate for
applicants, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the
application.

2. Permission is granted. Application is dismissed and disposed
of as withdrawn”.

(emphasis supplied)

10. Astonishingly, after withdrawing Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application

No. 2203 of 2025 before this Court, the Applicants again approached the

Sessions Court, Sangli, with a Second pre-arrest bail application, registered as

Criminal Bail Application No. 400 of 2026, which was dismissed by the

Sessions Court, Sangli, by order dated 4th July 2026 on merits. Paragraphs 12,

13 & 14 of the order dated 4th July 2026 read as follows:

“12] However, it is submitted by the investigating officer that during
investigation, it was revealed that the said CCTV footage was
produced in a pen drive by the father of the applicant/accused,
namely Dattatraya Khandekar, claiming that the same was taken
from the office premises of Shri Deepak Mankar at Kothrud.
Upon verification during investigation, it was found that the
concerned office operator, namely Nikhil Anil Khavale,
specifically stated that no such footage was provided to
Dattatraya Khandekar or any other person. His detailed

osk 4 of 7
904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx

statement was recorded. Further, when the said CCTV footage
was shown to him, he categorically stated that the same does not
pertain to the CCTV cameras installed in the said party office.

13] The aforesaid material, prima-facie, indicates that the CCTV
footage relied upon by the applicant is not reliable and cannot be
accepted at this stage, and therefore the contention raised by the
applicants/accused deserves to be rejected.

14] The applicants/accused have made out no ground to consider
this anticipatory bail application in their favour. Thus, in view of
the gravity of the offence, the seriousness of the allegations, the
criminal antecedents of applicants/accused and the need for
custodial interrogation to trace co-accused and recover the
weapon and stolen amount, this Court is of the considered
opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the
bail application deserves to be rejected. Hence, following order.

ORDER

Application is hereby rejected.”

11. The Applicants are now before this Court with this Second Criminal

Anticipatory Bail Application. Specifically, this is the Fourth pre-arrest bail

application by the Applicants in Crime No. 316 of 2025, under Section 482 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the same facts.

12. Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants, has submitted

that there is no bar to maintaining a second Anticipatory Bail Application to

overcome the objection of Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP. However, Mr.

Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants, has overlooked the

requirement that, to maintain a second or successive application in a given

osk 5 of 7
904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx

case, there must be substantial material or a substantive change in the factual

situation and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events or in law.

13. Neither the contents of this Application nor the contentions of Mr.

Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants before this Court, indicate

any substantial material or a substantive change in the factual situation and

circumstances of the case due to subsequent events or in law that would

warrant entertaining the second Anticipatory Bail Application.

By contrast, the Sessions Court, Sangli, in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the

order dated 4th July 2026, passed in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application

No. 2203 of 2025, suggests that the Applicants created the situation.

14. The observations of this Court in the order dated 28 th January 2026,

passed in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203 of 2025, suggest

that the matter was argued at length and that the Court was not inclined to

consider the Anticipatory Bail Application, as such, withdrawn by the

Applicants.

15. In G. R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. 1, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed that successive Anticipatory Bail Applications

ought not to be entertained on specious reason of change in circumstances.

16. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State, is justified

1 (2021) 16 SCC 725

osk 6 of 7
904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx

in his objections regarding the maintainability of this Second Application

under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before

this Court.

17. In view of the above, given the gravity of the offence and the

seriousness of the allegations in Crime No. 316 of 2025, I decline to entertain

the Second Application for Anticipatory Bail.

18. Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 413 of 2026 is dismissed.

[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]

Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.08.27
12:44:35
+0530

osk 7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…