Bombay High Court
Sneha Santosh Karajagi alias UnnadversusThe State Of Maharashtra
- Disposal
- Disposed off as Withdrawn
Holding
The court permitted the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application for Applicant No.1, dismissed that application, and granted leave to Applicant No.2 to file a fresh bail application, leaving the merits open.
Summary
The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 654 of 2026 alleging offences under Sections 3(5) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The State contended that Applicant No.1 had lodged a false complaint to pressure Respondent No.3. The applicants’ counsel requested unconditional withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application for Applicant No.1 and permission for Applicant No.2 to file a fresh bail application. The State and Respondent No.3 did not oppose the withdrawal but reserved the right to contest any fresh bail on merits. The court granted the withdrawal, dismissed the anticipatory bail application against Applicant No.1, and allowed Applicant No.2 to file a new bail application, leaving all substantive objections open.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application can be withdrawn unconditionally by the applicant.
- Whether a fresh bail application may be filed by a co‑applicant after withdrawal of a composite anticipatory bail application.
- Whether the merits of the underlying FIR can be contested at a later stage.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- withdrawal of bail application
- fresh bail application
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- false allegations
Judgment
23 - ABA - 511 - 2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 511 OF 2026
Sneha Santosh Karajagi Alias Unnad & Anr. … Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Prasad Kamthe (through V.C.) with Vinayak Belgaonkar
for the Applicant.
Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP for the State.
Mr. Sachin M. Bhavar for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
P.C.:
1. By the present Application, the Applicants have sought the
following substantive reliefs:
“a. That the present Application of the Applicants, in connection with C.R.
No. 654 of 2026, dated 02.07.2026, registered with Mohol Police Station,
District Solapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5) and 303(2)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, may kindly be allowed;
b. That, pending the hearing and final disposal of this Application, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent and its officers not to
arrest the Applicants in connection with the FIR bearing C.R. No. 654 of
2026, registered with Mohol Police Station, District Solapur;
c. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly protect the Applicants and grant
interim protection until the final hearing of the present Application;
d. That the interim/ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (b) and (c)above
VRJ 1
23 - ABA - 511 - 2026.docx
may kindly be granted;
e. Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice”
2. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP for the State, and Mr. Sachin
Bhavar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3, submit that Applicant
No. 1 had filed a complaint against the husband of Respondent No. 3,
making false allegations with a sole motive and intent to pressurize
Respondent No. 3 to withdraw the present FIR.
3. Mr. Sachin Bhavar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3, has
tendered an affidavit-in-reply dated 13th September 2026 along with
documents (pages 48 to 92). The same is taken on record.
4. Faced with the contentions urged by Mr. Nitin B. Patil and Mr.
Sachin Bhavar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3, in the context of
mala fides of Applicant No. 1 (Sneha Santosh Karajagi @ Unnad), Mr.
Prasad Kamthe, learned Advocate for the Applicants, on instructions,
seeks leave to unconditionally withdraw the Anticipatory Bail
Application on behalf of Sneha Santosh Karajagi @ Unnad (Applicant
No. 1).
5. Mr. Prasad Kamthe, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits
that, as this Application is a composite Application on behalf of both the
Applicants, liberty be granted to Applicant No. 2 (Shivkanya Basavaraj
Mathapati) to file a fresh Bail Application.
VRJ 2
23 - ABA - 511 - 2026.docx
6. The aforesaid request made by Mr. Prasad Kamthe, learned
Advocate for the Applicants for seeking withdrawal on behalf of
Applicant No. 1 and filing a fresh Bail Application on behalf of
Applicant No. 2 is not objected to by Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP, and
Mr. Sachin Bhavar for Respondent No. 3. They, however, submit that
their right to object to the Bail Application, if filed by Applicant No. 2,
on merits be expressly left open.
7. In view of the statement made by Mr. Prasad Kamthe, learned
Advocate for the Applicants, leave is granted to withdraw this
Anticipatory Bail Application on behalf of Applicant No. 1 (Sneha
Santosh Karajagi Alias Unnad).
8. In view of the withdrawal, Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application
No. 511 of 2026 stands dismissed as against Applicant No. 1.
9. Leave is granted to Applicant No. 2 to file a fresh Bail
Application.
10. All the contentions of the Respondents on merits are left open.
11. Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 511 of 2026 is
disposed of in the above terms.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
VRJ 3
Checking your session…