AVINASH GORAKSH CHOUDHARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                                                 32-APEAL-692-2026.doc


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 692 OF 2026

                      Avinash Goraksh Choudhari                          …Appellant

                              V/s.

                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                    ...Respondents


                      Mr. Vikas Kolekar, a/w Mr. Kunal Shirgire, Mr. Prakash Y., Mr.
                      Prashant Patole, Adv. S. Gaikwad, Ms. Neeta Kolekar, Mr. Siddhant
                      Malegaonkar & Mr. Shubhankar Malegaonkar, Advocate for the
                      Appellant.
                      Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.
                      Adv. Aniket N., a/w Ms. Priyesha Patel, a/w Mr. Shubham W., a/w
                      Adv. Noel Jacob, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.


                                                       CORAM         :   N.R. BORKAR, J.
                                                       DATE          :   30.09.2026.

PRAMOD                P.C. :
SANTOSH
LAKARE
Digitally signed by
PRAMOD
SANTOSH LAKARE
                      1.                This   appeal takes exception to the order dated
Date: 2026.10.01
19:49:07 +0530



                      25.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in

                      Criminal Bail Application No. 4891 of 2025.



                      2.                By the order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions

                      Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by the

                      present appellant, who is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.

                      1552 of 2025 registered at Hadapsar police station for the
                      Pramod S.Lakare
                                                               1/5
                                                          32-APEAL-692-2026.doc


offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 324(4), 352, 351(3),

189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) &

3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act.



3.                There is a property dispute between the family of the

first informant and the family of co-accused Rahul Tupe. It is

alleged that the first informant and his family members who

belong to Scheduled Caste had been constantly threatened to

vacate the said disputed property. It is alleged that on 06.06.2024

the first informant and her family members were again threatened

by the co-accused who were armed with pistol and at that time

the present appellant was with them. It is further alleged that on

07.06.2024, the present appellant and other co-accused made the

first informant and her husband to sign certain documents.



4.                I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the

learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for

the respondent No.2.



5.                The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Pramod S.Lakare
                                         2/5
                                                               32-APEAL-692-2026.doc


appellant has nothing to do with the alleged property dispute

between the family of the the first informant and the family of co-

accused Rahul Tupe. It is submitted that there is a delay of about

five months in lodging the first information report. It is submitted

that the investigation is over and the prosecution has filed the

charge-sheet against the co-accused. The learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the appellant to allay any apprehension of

threat is willing to stay out of Pune City.



6.                On   the   other   hand,     the   learned   APP     for     the

respondent/State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2

submit that the present appellant was with the other co-accused

at the time of incident dated 06.06.2024 and 07.06.2024. It is

further submitted that the FIR was not immediately lodged due to

fear of the co-accused Rahul Tupe against whom there are many

criminal cases and one of the case is for the offence punishable

under the MCOC Act. It is submitted that the appellant is involved

in two more crimes. It is submitted that thus the appellant may

not be released on anticipatory bail.



7.                I have perused the first information report. The alleged
Pramod S.Lakare
                                         3/5
                                                          32-APEAL-692-2026.doc


property dispute appears to be between the family of the first

informant and the family of the co-accused Rahul Tupe. No specific

overt act is attributed to the present appellant either in the

incident dated 06.06.2024 or 07.06.2024. Considering the said

fact, I am inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail on

certain condition. In the result, the following order is passed :


                                 ORDER


              i)     The appeal is allowed.

              ii)    The order impugned is set aside.

              iii)   In the event of the arrest of the appellant
              in Crime No. 1552 of 2025 registered at Hadapsar
              police station for the offences punishable under
              Sections 329(4), 324(4), 352, 351(3), 189(2) of
              the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3(1)(f),
              3(1)(g) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
              Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
              Section 3(25) of the Arms Act, he shall be
              released on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.
              25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
              amount.

              iv     The appellant shall not enter into the limits
              of Pune City except to attend the dates before the

Pramod S.Lakare
                                        4/5
                                                             32-APEAL-692-2026.doc


              trial Court.

              v)       The appellant shall not tamper with the
              prosecution evidence.


              vi)      The appellant shall not commit any other
              crime.

              vii)           Liberty is granted to the prosecution as
              well as to respondent No.2 to file an application
              for cancellation of the present anticipatory bail in
              case the appellant commits breach of any of
              above condition.



8.                The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.



                                                     [N.R.BORKAR, J.]




Pramod S.Lakare
                                           5/5