AVINASH VISHNU JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:31039




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      28 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 597 OF 2026

                                     AVINASH VISHNU JADHAV
                                               VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                ...
           Mr. S. S. Jadhav h/f Mr. Chaitanya Chandrakant Deshpande, Advocate for
           Applicant
           Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for the Respondent/State

                                                      CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                      DATED     : 27th JULY, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    Applicant seeks pre arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

           0581/2025, registered with Shahada Police Station, Districdt Nandurbar, for

           the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 310(4), 311, 138, 351,

           115(2), 61(2), 140(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3,

           4, 25, 25(1k)(z) of the Arms Act.


           2.    The First Information Report reveals that the incident took place on

           27.10.2025, during which the informant alleged that 30 kg of silver

           ornaments, 200 grams of gold ornaments, and cash of Rs. 6 lakhs were

           robbed. Admittedly, the present applicant is not alleged to have participated in

           the actual incident of robbery.




           28 ABA 597.2026.odt                                                       1 of 4
3.    Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the material collected

during the course of investigation does not disclose any incriminating

evidence against the applicant. Inviting attention to the First Information

Report, he submits that the informant had initially alleged theft of 30 kg of

silver ornaments. However, after recovery of more than 54 kg of silver

ornaments, the informant gave a supplementary statement correcting the

quantity allegedly robbed to be 76 kg silver. It is contended that even

assuming, for the sake of argument, that the silver ornaments were recovered

from the agricultural land belonging to the applicant, such recovery by itself

does not warrant his custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that

though certain gold ornaments have been recovered from the co-accused,

there is no material to indicate that any of the accused had entrusted or

handed over the gold ornaments to the present applicant. The learned

Advocate also points out that the applicant has no criminal antecedents,

though one of the co-accused happens to be his brother-in-law.


4.    Learned APP opposed the application by submitting that the

discrepancy regarding the weight of the gold and silver ornaments mentioned

in the First Information Report could be attributed to an inadvertent error on

the part of the informant, who is a goldsmith. It is further contended that

since the recovery of the silver ornaments was effected from the agricultural



28 ABA 597.2026.odt                                                     2 of 4
land of the applicant, his involvement in the offence is prima facie established.

It is, therefore, submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is

necessary for effecting recovery of the remaining gold ornaments.


5.    Prima facie, the First Information Report shows that the informant had

alleged robbery of 30 kg of silver ornaments. It is only after recovery of more

than 54 kg of silver ornaments that a supplementary statement came to be

recorded correcting the quantity. The explanation offered by the learned APP

that the discrepancy was a bona fide mistake is difficult to accept, particularly

when the First Information Report contains specific details regarding the

weight of the ornaments and even if submissions of learned APP an accepted

that the chits indicating weight of ornaments were also got stolen, still it

appears improbable that a goldsmith would commit an error of such

magnitude by stating that 30 kg of silver ornaments were robbed instead of

more than 76 kg. A prima facie doubt therefore is created about correctness of

the report.


6.    As regards the recovery, it is true that the silver ornaments are stated to

have been recovered from the agricultural land of the applicant. However, it is

not in dispute that one of the co-accused is the brother-in-law of the applicant

and the recovery has been made from agricultural filed, it is difficult to

personally attribute it to the applicant. Most importantly, the charge-sheet


28 ABA 597.2026.odt                                                        3 of 4
does not disclose any material indicating that any of the accused had handed

over the stolen gold ornaments to the applicant. In view of the material

collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that custodial

interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Hence, the following order.

                                       ORDER

             (i)      Application is allowed.

             (ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with
             Crime No. 0581/2025, registered with Shahada Police Station,
             Districdt Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under
             Sections 310(2), 310(4), 311, 138, 351, 115(2), 61(2),
             140(1), 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under
             Sections 3, 4(25), 25(1k)(z) of the Arms Act, he shall be
             released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/-
             (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the
             like amount.

             (iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and
             when called by the Investigating Officer.

             (iv)     He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

             (v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
             whatsoever.

             (vi) He further directed to cooperate the investigating
             agency for further investigation.


7.    Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the

concerned Police Station.

                                                          ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




28 ABA 597.2026.odt                                                            4 of 4