Bombay High Court
RUSHIKESH VACHISHT LANGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted pre‑arrest bail subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Rushikesh Vachisht Langade, appealed against the denial of pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under IPC sections 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m), 118(1) and 352. The victim filed an affidavit stating she had no objection to bail and that the FIR was lodged due to a misconception, noting that the parties had agreed to marry. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court, noting the victim’s unopposed affidavit and the claim of misconception, found no justification to deny relief. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety, subject to conditions of attendance, non‑contact with witnesses, non‑interference with evidence, and cooperation with investigators.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged in the FIR.
- Whether the victim’s affidavit stating no objection and that the FIR was filed due to a misconception warrants granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 118(1), 352, 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- criminal appeal
- IPC sections 64, 118, 352
- victim affidavit
- misconception
- bail conditions
Judgment
931-CA-285-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
931 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2026
Rushikesh Vachisht Langade
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Ms. Neha Udavant h/f., Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Shashikant Shekade for Respondent No.3.
...
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE : AUGUST 21, 2026
P. C. :
1. Victim is present in the Court. She files an affidavit recording no
objection for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The affidavit is taken
on record and marked “X” for identification.
2. Perusal of the said affidavit shows that according to the
informant/victim, the First Information Report was lodged due to
misconception. She also states that it was decided between the informant
and the appellant to get married.
3. Learned APP opposes the grant of any relief to the appellant by
referring to the serious nature of crime and the allegations against the
appellant in the FIR.
4. Since, the informant recorded no objection with specific
statement that the report came to be lodged on account of a misconception
Page 1 of 2
931-CA-285-2026.odt
of the facts, this Court finds no justification for not allowing the appeal.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest of the Appellant in connection with C.R.
No. 0055 of 2026 registered with Pimpalner Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m),
118(1) and 352 he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR
bond of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one
surety in the like amount.
(iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when
required.
(iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(vi) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency
for further investigation.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Kiran Kawre
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…