Bombay High Court
PRATIK RAJENDRA JADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The High Court set aside the cancellation of bail and restored the bail order, imposing only additional conditions.
Summary
Pratik Rajendra Jadhav, accused of offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the POCSO Act, was granted bail on 9 December 2025 with a condition that he not enter Supa village. He entered the village on 11 December 2025 to collect his clothes and get a haircut, prompting the State to seek cancellation of bail under CrPC 439(2). The Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail and issued a non‑bailable warrant. Jadhav appealed, arguing that the breach was a technical lapse and that no other conditions were violated. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents governing bail cancellation, held that the breach did not amount to the “overwhelming circumstances” required for cancellation and set aside the lower court’s order, restoring bail with additional conditions restricting his movement in Pune district. The application was allowed and the non‑bailable warrant was cancelled.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused's entry into Supa village, in breach of a bail condition, constitutes sufficient ground for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the Sessions Court erred in cancelling bail without demonstrating supervening circumstances as required by Supreme Court jurisprudence on bail cancellation.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 333, 351(2), 64(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- CrPC 439
- breach of bail condition
- Supreme Court precedent
- POCSO
- non‑bailable warrant
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
902-APL-127-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 127 OF 2026
Pratik Rajendra Jadhav … Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
-------
Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Manas Gawankar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State and
Mr. Manas Gawankar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
2. By this Application, the Applicant assails the order
dated 19th January, 2026, passed by the Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Baramati (“Sessions Court”), in Special Case No.
214 of 2025, whereby the Sessions Court allowed the Application
Gayatri shimpi 1
902-APL-127-2026.doc
dated 26th December, 2025, at Exhibit-35, filed by the prosecution,
seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Applicant on
09.12.2025 in Special Case No. 214 of 2025, and dismissed the
Application dated 19th January, 2026, at Exhibit - 38, in which the
Applicant's request for exemption was rejected and a Non-Bailable
Warrant was issued against the Applicant.
3. Material facts relevant to the adjudication of the
present Application are that the Applicant is an Accused in Crime
No. 164 of 2025, registered with the Supa Police Station, Taluka
Baramati, District Pune, for offences punishable under Sections
64(1), 333, and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and
Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ Act). The said crime is registered as
Special Case No. 214 of 2025 and is pending on the file of the
Sessions Court.
4. Applicant was arrested on 17th September, 2025, and
remained in custody until he was granted bail by the Sessions
Court on 9th December, 2025, on the conditions mentioned in para
2(i) to (v) and 3.
Gayatri shimpi 2
902-APL-127-2026.doc
5. On 26th December, 2025, the Respondent No. 1 filed an
Application under Section 439 (2) of Cr. P. C., marked Exhibit – 35,
seeking cancellation of the Bail granted to the Applicant. The
grounds for cancellation of the Bail were that the CCTV footage
dated 11th December, 2025, showed the Applicant leaving a salon
(Rutba Mens Parlour) in Supa Village. According to the
prosecution, the Applicant thereby breached Bail condition no.
2(v) of the order dated 9th December, 2025.
6. The Application at Exhibit - 35 was resisted by the
Applicant. The Applicant contended that he was released from jail
on 11th December, 2025, and had returned to his house to collect
his clothes. As he needed a haircut, he stopped at the salon (Rutba
Mens Parlour) while on his way to leave Supa Village.
7. The Applicant’s contention did not find favour with the
Sessions Court, which resulted in the Application at Exhibit – 35
being granted and the Bail being cancelled. The reasons for
cancelling the Bail are set out in paragraph No. 4 of the order
Gayatri shimpi 3
902-APL-127-2026.doc
dated 19th January, 2026.
8. On 19th January, 2026, the Applicant filed an
Application for adjournment/exemption from appearance (Exhibit
– 38), which was rejected by the Sessions Court, and an NBW was
issued against the Applicant. The Applicant is thus before this
Court.
9. Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant, though granted Bail on 9th December,
2025, had the formalities for his release completed on 11th
December, 2025. The Applicant, a permanent resident of Supa
Village, had to enter the Village to collect his clothes. Mr. Ranjeet
Pawar submits that, although the Applicant had to exit the Village
immediately upon collecting his clothes, he had a haircut at the
salon and left the Village Supa immediately thereafter. He
therefore submits that leniency be shown by protecting the liberty
of the Applicant, who has been enlarged on Bail on merits. He
submits that, apart from the incident on 11 th December 2025, the
Applicant has complied with the bail conditions.
Gayatri shimpi 4
902-APL-127-2026.doc
10. Mr Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State,
submits that the order dated 9th December, 2025, amongst other
conditions, specifically barred the Applicant from entering the
Village Supa, and as such, the Applicant could not have entered
the Village Supa. He submits that entering the Village Supa after
9th December, 2025, itself is sufficient to cancel the Applicant's
Bail. He, however, states that the prosecution has not alleged any
other breach of the condition of the Order dated 9th December,
2025, granting Bail.
11. Mr. Manas Gawankar, learned Advocate for Respondent
No. 2, states that the Applicant ought not to have entered Supa
Village, even for the purpose of collecting his clothes. He further
submits that the victim in the present crime is terrified, knowing
that the Applicant was present in Supa Village. Mr. Manas
Gawankar submits that, in the event this Court considers the
Applicant's request, a further stringent condition be imposed on
the Applicant not to enter the District of Pune till further orders
from the Sessions Court.
Gayatri shimpi 5
902-APL-127-2026.doc
12. In rejoinder, Mr. Ranjeet Pawar submits that it was a
mistake on the part of the Applicant to enter the Village Supa on
11th December, 2025, and reiterates that the Applicant shall abide
by each and every condition of the order dated 9 th December,
2025. He states, on instructions from the Applicant, that the
Applicant shall not enter the District of Pune for a period this
Court may deem fit and proper to impose. He submits that this
statement is in addition to the conditions imposed in the Bail
Order dated 9th December, 2025.
13. The allegation against the Applicant is that he has
breached Condition No. 2(v) of the Bail Order dated 9th December,
2025, passed in Special Case No. 214 of 2025, which reads as
follows:
2. (v) Accused shall not enter in Supa village till the
conclusion of trial and he shall not contact with the
victim in any manner.
14. Indisputably, the Applicant, apart from entering the
Village of Supa on 11th December, 2025, to collect his clothes and
get a haircut, did not thereafter remain in or enter the Village of
Supa. Further, there are no allegations that the Applicant violated
Gayatri shimpi 6
902-APL-127-2026.doc
or breached any other condition imposed by the order dated 9 th
December, 2025.
15. Mr. Manas Gawankar and Mr. Sukanta Karmakar,
learned APP for the State, confirm that during the period when the
Applicant was in Village Supa on 11 th December, 2025, he neither
attempted to contact the victim nor any other witnesses to the
Crime.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Phireram Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr1, in paragraphs 54 to 59, has laid
down the principles governing the cancellation of bail:
54. The law on cancellation of bail is well settled
through a plethora of decisions of this Court.
55. In P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211 this
Court held that the grant of bail is always
conditional and may be subject to cancellation, if
after the grant of the same there is any supervening
circumstances that impedes fair trial.
"23. In a recent decision of a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Imran v. Mohd. Bhava
[Imran v. Mohd. Bhava, (2022) 13 SCC 70] it has
been held as follows:
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1915
Gayatri shimpi 7
902-APL-127-2026.doc
"20. Indeed, it is a well-established
principle that once bail has been granted it would
require overwhelming circumstances for its
cancellation. However, this Court in its judgment
in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab [Vipan
Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC
518] has also reiterated, that while conventionally.
certain supervening circumstances impeding fair
trial must develop after granting bail to an
accused, for its cancellation by a superior court,
bail, can also be revoked by a superior court. when
the previous court granting ball has ignored
relevant material available on record, gravity of
the offence or its societal impact. It was thus
observed:
‘9. ...Conventionally, there can be supervening
circumstances which may develop post the grant
of bail and be supervening are non-conducive to
fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail.
This Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat
Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995
SCC (CH) 237] observed that:
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at
the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so
granted, have to be considered and dealt with on
different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order directing
the cancellation of the bail, already granted.
Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of
bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are :
interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice or evasion or
attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse
of the concession granted to the accused in any
manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis
of material placed on the record of the possibility
of the accused absconding is yet another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail
Gayatri shimpi 8
902-APL-127-2026.doc
once granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether
any supervening circumstances have rendered it
no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the
accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during the trial.”
10. These principles have been reiterated time
and again, more recently by a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in X v. State of Telangana [X v. State of
Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511 : (2020) 1 SCC
(Cri) 902].
11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the
cited decision(s), bail can also be revoked where
the court has considered irrelevant factors or has
ignored relevant material available on record which
renders the order granting bail legally untenable.
The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused
and societal impact of an undue indulgence by
Court when the investigation is at the threshold,
are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior
Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent
the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the
administration of criminal justice system…’
xxx xxx xxx
23. Thus, while considering cancellation of bail
already granted by a lower court, would indeed
require significant scrutiny at the instance of
superior court, however, bail when granted can
always be revoked if the relevant material on
record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact
have not been considered by the lower court. In
such instances, where bail is granted in a
mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable
to be set aside. Moreover, the decisions cited
hereinabove, enumerate certain basic principles
which must be borne in mind when deciding upon
an application for grant of bail. Thus, while each
case has its own unique factual matrix, which
Gayatri shimpi 9
902-APL-127-2026.doc
assumes a significant role in determination of bail
matters, grant of bail must also be exercised by
having regard to the abovementioned well-settled
principles.”
24. As can be discerned from the above decisions,
for cancelling bail once granted, the court must
consider whether any supervening circumstances
have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant
of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive
to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat
Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary
circumstances, this Court would be loathe to
interfere with an order passed by the court below
granting bail but if such an order is found to be
illegal or perverse or premised on material that is
irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to
scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
56. This Court then summed up the principles or
circumstance governing the cancellation of bail as
under:—
“25. Some of the circumstances where bail
granted to the accused under Section 439(1)
CrPC can be cancelled are enumerated
below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in
similar/other criminal activity;
(b) If he interferes with the course of
investigation;
(c) If he attempts to tamper with the
evidence;
(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the
witnesses;
(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court
proceedings;
(f) If he indulges in activities which would
hamper smooth investigation;
Gayatri shimpi 10
902-APL-127-2026.doc
(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by
going underground and/or becoming
unavailable to the investigating agency;
(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the
reach of his surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of
bail which are considered unconducive to a
fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only
illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.”
(Emphasis supplied)
57. The governing principle is that if the accused
tampers with evidence, threatens witnesses, or
attempts to subvert the trial, the indulgence of bail
is to be withdrawn. It is a recognition that liberty is
conditional, not absolute, and subject always to the
larger interest of ensuring a fair trial.
Considerations for cancellation of bail must always
be on the basis of the well settled principles as
discussed aforesaid. There cannot be any
extraneous considerations involved that are
unknown to the law of bails.
58. At the same time, emphasis has to be laid that
cancellation of bail occupies a distinct space in the
criminal justice machinery. Cancellation intervenes
at the stage of violation, to prevent recurrence. In
State through Delhi Administration v. Sanjay
Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411, this Court underscored
that tampering with witnesses constitutes a cogent
ground for cancellation, for the “opportunity of
being on bail cannot be permitted to be abused for
the purpose of thwarting the course of justice.”
Similarly, in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar,
(1986) 4 SCC 481, it was reiterated that
intimidation of witnesses is sufficient to revoke the
liberty granted. It must be guided by the lodestar of
preventing interference with witnesses that “strikes
at the root of the rule of law.”
Gayatri shimpi 11
902-APL-127-2026.doc
59. Thus, the considerations that must weigh with
the court for setting aside the bail order on an
application being moved by the aggrieved party
include any supervening circumstances that might
have occurred after granting relief to the accused,
the conduct of the accused while on bail, any
attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate,
resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of
threats being extended to the witnesses while on
bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to
tamper with the evidence in any manner etc.
17. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
hereinabove, the absence of any allegations that the Applicant
attempted to delay the trial, issue any threats to any witnesses, or
attempt to tamper with evidence in any manner, and guided by the
principles laid down in Phireram (supra), I deem it fit and proper
to entertain the present Application.
18. The impugned order dated 19th January, 2026, on
Exhibit – 35, and the order dated 19th January, 2026, on Exhibit –
38, passed by the Sessions Court in Special Case No. 214 of 2025,
are set aside. Consequently, Application at Exhibit – 35 is
dismissed. The Bail order dated 9th December, 2025, in Special
Case No. 214 of 2025, is restored. The Non-Bailable Warrant
issued to the Applicant is cancelled.
Gayatri shimpi 12
902-APL-127-2026.doc
19. The statement made by Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, on
instructions from the Applicant, not to enter the District of Pune
for the period this Court would order, is accepted. All other Bail
Conditions of the Bail order dated 9th December, 2025, in Special
Case No. 214 of 2025 remain intact.
20. In addition to the Bail conditions in the order dated 9th
December, 2025 in Special Case No. 214 of 2025, the following
conditions are imposed: -
(a) The Applicant shall not enter the
territorial jurisdiction of Pune District until
the examination of the Victim in Special
Case No. 214 of 2025, except for attending
the trial/hearing in Special Case No. 214 of
2025;
(b) The Applicant shall regularly attend
and appear before the Court of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in
Special Case No. 214 of 2025 unless
specifically exempted by the Sessions Court.
21. Criminal Application No. 127 of 2026 is allowed
in the above terms.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Gayatri shimpi 13
Checking your session…