Bombay High Court
KHAJASAHEB AMIRHAMAJA BHALDARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted because the applicant is not named in the FIR and no specific role or criminal antecedent is established.
Summary
The applicant, Khajasaheb Amirhamaja Bhaldar, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a criminal case alleging extortion. The FIR names four other accused but does not mention the applicant, and those accused have already been granted bail. The prosecution argued that the offence is serious and that the applicant was present at the scene, while the defence contended that there is no specific allegation against him and he has no criminal record. The court examined the FIR, noted the absence of the applicant’s name and lack of any specific role, and considered the precedent where similar bail was granted. Relying on Section 482 and the principle that bail may be granted when the applicant is not an accused, the court ordered anticipatory bail with conditions. The application was therefore disposed in favour of the applicant.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person not named as an accused in the FIR under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged extortion offence warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 308(2), 308(5), 3(5), 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- FIR
- extortion
- high court
- Maharashtra
- criminal procedure
Judgment
42 ABA-84-2026.DOC
skt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2026
Khajasaheb Amirhamaja Bhaldar …Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
(At the instance of Dehu Road Police Station,
Pune)
Mr. Adhik Kadam i/b Mr. Imran Shaikh, for the Applicant.
Ms. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State.
PSI A. Rathod, Dehu Road Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Adhik Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant and Ms. Tidke,learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State.
2. By this Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-
arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 169 of 2025 registered with
Dehu Road Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, for the offences
punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(5) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Page 1 of 4
17th August, 2026
42 ABA-84-2026.DOC
skt
3. The first informant is Minku Malhotra. As per the
prosecution case, Accused i.e., Raju Marimuthu, Ramdas Tate,
Babu Tekkel and Chandrashekhar Pathare hatched conspiracy and
extorted money of Rs.50,000/- from the first informant. The two
accused visited the spot of his construction and made video
recordings. Thereafter, the Accused No. 1 Raju Marimuthu visited
him and took extortion money of Rs.50,000/- in cash and video
recordings of the same are available with the first informant.
4. It is the submission of Mr. Kadam, learned counsel appearing
for the Applicant that in the F.I.R., name of the Applicant is not
mentioned. All accused whose names are mentioned in the F.I.R.
have been released on bail. He submits that there is no role
whatsoever attributed to the present Applicant.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Tidke, learned APP states that the
offence is very serious and therefore the application be rejected.
She states that the Applicant’s role has come to light during the
investigation and when the incident took place, he was found to be
on the spot.
Page 2 of 4
17th August, 2026
42 ABA-84-2026.DOC
skt
6. Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the present Applicant is not
made an accused therein. No specific role has been attributed to
the Applicant, and there are no criminal antecedents him. The
record further shows that the other accused, against whom specific
allegations have been made in the F.I.R., have already been
granted anticipatory bail by the learned Single Judge by order
dated 30th July, 2025, passed in the case of Raju Ramswamy
Marimuttu Vs. State of Maharashtra, in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 2488 of 2025 along with connected matters.
Accordingly, the case is made out for grant of Anticipatory Bail. In
view thereof, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant-Khajasaheb
Amirhamaja Bhaldar, in connection with C.R. No. 169
of 2025 registered with Dehu Road Police Station,
Pimpri Chinchwad, the Applicant is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties each in
the like amount.
(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Page 3 of 4
17th August, 2026
42 ABA-84-2026.DOC
skt
Station as and when called by the Investigating
Officer.
(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
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.
7. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 4 of 4
17th August, 2026
Checking your session…