CHANDRAKANT SHANTARAM TAYDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:5682

                                            1                        924.ACB-236-2025.doc




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
               APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 236 OF 2025

                       CHANDRAKANT SHANTARAM TAYDE
                                   VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                         …
                    Advocate for Applicant : Adv. Chaudhari Akshaya Sanjeev
                     APP for Respondents/State : Mr. N. S. Tekale
                                       …

                                         CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                                           DATE : 6th FEBRUARY 2026

              PER COURT :
              1.       Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the
              learned APP for the State.

              2.       The   Applicant     has   approached   this    Court,       seeking
              cancellation of anticipatory bail of the accused Respondent No.2
              herein, who was granted bail vide order dated 02.12.2025 by the
              learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.


              3.       The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that
              Respondent No.2 is alleged to have committed serious offences of
              extortion by threatening with a dangerous weapon, namely a
              revolver. Looking to the gravity of the offences, the learned trial
              Court erred in exercising discretion under Section 482 for grant of
              anticipatory bail, without properly considering the seriousness of the
                                2                   924.ACB-236-2025.doc




offence and the threats posed by the accused to the Applicant.
.        The learned Counsel further submits that, taking into
consideration the observations of the learned trial Court in the order
dated 02.12.2025, it is evident that the learned Additional Sessions
Judge failed to appreciate the allegations made in the FIR. The
prosecution has also stated that the revolver allegedly pointed
towards the complainant is yet to be recovered. However still the
learned Sessions Judge allowed the anticipatory bail application by
confirming the interim order.


4.       I have gone through the impugned order dated 02.12.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. A perusal of the
order shows that the learned Trial Court considered the allegations
made in the FIR, wherein it is alleged that the complainant was
called by the Applicant to a petrol pump for the purpose of
purchasing plots and was threatened by showing a firearm, and was
asked to tell Jayshree to seek a divorce from her husband. It is
further alleged that the complainant was compelled to transfer
Rs.2,000/- by online mode to the mobile number of the Applicant.
The firearm was allegedly shown from the pocket of the pant,
attached to his waist.
.        Taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, interim
relief was granted to Respondent No.2/accused, directing him to
attend the police station and cooperate with the investigation on
specified dates. It is observed by the learned Sessions Court that
Respondent No.2 attended the police station on the given dates, and
                              3                       924.ACB-236-2025.doc




there is no record in the case diary to show that he was thereafter
called again or that he failed to cooperate. The prosecution, however,
states that the accused has failed to hand over the revolver allegedly
used by him on the date of the incident.


5.       The perusal of the impugned order dated 02.12.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that the
learned trial Court considered the allegations made in the FIR. The
FIR itself shows that the complainant himself was not sure whether
the revolver, which was not even pointed at him, was merely kept in
the pocket of the pant of the accused, attached to his waist and the
complainant also appeared unsure whether the said revolver was real
or a plastic toy. The learned trial Court has therefore observed that,
taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the compliance
of the accused with the interim order, and after going through the
investigation papers, discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS was
exercised for confirming the interim order dated 12.11.2025, thereby
releasing Respondent No.2 on anticipatory bail.


6.       It is almost a settled law that the scope for interference in
matters of cancellation of bail, where the accused has been released
after due application of mind by the Trial Court, is very limited. It is
only in the event of any supervening circumstances that the superior
Court can intervene in the order releasing the accused on bail. No
such circumstance or subsequent conduct of the accused has been
brought to the notice of this Court, nor is there any material to show
                               4                       924.ACB-236-2025.doc




that the accused extended threats which could have caused prejudice
to the prosecution case. Thus, in the absence of any material to show
that the accused has violated any of the conditions, I am not inclined
to interfere with the well-reasoned order dated 02.12.2025, wherein
the learned Sessions Court exercised its discretion to release the
accused on bail.


7.         The application for cancellation of bail is therefore rejected
and disposed of accordingly.



                                             MEHROZ K. PATHAN
                                                 JUDGE


NAJEEB..