Bombay High Court
ALKA SURESH KORDE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as custodial interrogation is not required, subject to a personal bond and sureties.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Alka Suresh Korde, who feared arrest in Crime No. 71/2026 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that she, along with co‑accused, assaulted a first informant with intent to kill, while the defence contended that the only allegation against her was verbal abuse and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court examined the FIR, the nature of the allegations, and the need for interrogation, concluding that the allegations did not justify denial of bail. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.30,000 personal bond with one or two sureties and directed her to cooperate with police as required. The interim application to withdraw the second applicant was also disposed, and the court emphasized that the trial court would decide the case on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in view of the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is required under the circumstances.
- Whether the conditions imposed for bail are appropriate and sufficient.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 118(2), 140(4), 189(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- custodial interrogation
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- assault
- attempt to murder
Judgment
22-ABA-697-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2026
Alka Suresh Korde and anr.
VAISHALI Versus
ANIL
TIKAM The State of Maharashtra
With
Digitally signed INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1095 OF 2026
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
IN
2026.08.04 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.697 OF 2026
12:01:55 +0530
Sachin Dhanaji Aatole
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rahul S. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni and Sandeep Mahadik
Advocate for Applicants (in ABA 697 of 2026)
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Sarang Satish Aradhye, for Intervenor.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 31st JULY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants, learned APP and
learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks leave
to withdraw application for Applicant No.2.
3. Considering his submissions, leave granted. Application is
allowed to be withdrawn for Applicant No.2, dismissed and disposed of.
Page 1 of 3
22-ABA-697-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
4. The Applicant No.1 is apprehending arrest in Crime No.
71/2026 registered with Baramati Police Station, Pune City for the offence
punishable under Sections 140(4), 118(2), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352,
189(1), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS).
5. It is prosecution's case that on 11/02/2026, around 3.30 p.m.
applicant No.1 and co-accused assaulted the first informant with intention
to kill him on the ground that he was not attending the work.
6. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant No.1 that
the allegations against Applicant No.1. that she abused the first informant.
Except that, there are no other allegations against Applicant No.1. She is
lady. Hence custodial interrogation of Applicant No.1 is not required and
requested to allow the Application.
5. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 that Applicant and co-accused brutely assaulted the first
informant with intention to kill him. Applicant No.1 was part of the
group, who brutely assaulted the first informant. She is mother of accused
No.1. There is active involvement of Applicant No.1. Considering the
allegations against Applicant No.1, her custodial interrogation is required
and requested to allow the application.
6. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused the FIR and
Page 2 of 3
22-ABA-697-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
documents produced on record. The main allegations in the FIR are
against the co-accused. The allegation against Applicant No.1 is that she
abused the first informant. Considering the allegations against Applicant
No.1, her custodial interrogation is not required and I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) In the even of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime
No. 71/2026 registered with Baramati Police Station, Pune City, on
executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
The application is allowed in above terms and stands disposed
of. Pending interim application is also disposed of.
7. 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.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…