ANIKET MADHUKAR CHANDANSHIVEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                          935.APL-1516.26.DOC




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             Digitally signed
             by PRACHI
PRACHI       PRANESH                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRANESH      NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
             Date: 2026.09.03
             20:20:53 +0530            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1516 OF 2026

                     Aniket Madhukar Chandanshive                         … Applicant
                                V/s.
                     The State of Maharashtra                             …. Respondent
                                                  ______________________

                     Mr. Ranjeet M. Pawar, for the Applicant.
                     Mr. S. V. Walve, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                               ______________________

                                                  CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                                  DATED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026
                     P. C. :-
                     1.          Heard Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel appearing for the

                     Applicant and Mr. Walve, learned APP, for the Respondent-State.

                     2.         By this Criminal Application filed under Section 528 of the

                     Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the challenge is to the

                     legality and validity of the Order dated 30th January 2026 passed

                     by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge,

                     District and Sessions Court, Shivajinagar, Pune (“impugned

                     Order”). The impugned Order reads as under:

                           “Perused.
                           Heard.
                           As such the provisions of MCOCA came to be invoked
                           after release of the accused on bail, to facilitate the




                                                       Page 1
                     PPN
                                                   935.APL-1516.26.DOC




      investigation, the re-arrest of the accused is very much
      essential. Hence, allowed to re-arrest the accused in
      this crime.”
                                             (Emphasis added)

3.     Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits that

the re-arrest Order was passed by the learned Special Court

without issuing notice to the Applicant or hearing the Applicant.

He submits that the subject FIR has been lodged for the offences

punishable under Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 (“BNS”), Sections 5C, 9A and 9B of the Maharashtra Animal

Preservation Act, 1976 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals Act, 1960. He further submits that the Applicant was

arrested on 4th September 2025 and thereafter Section 111 of BNS

was applied with previous sanction and that the Charge-sheet was

filed on 30th October 2025 and, thereafter, the Applicant has been

released on bail. He submits that thereafter the provisions of

Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised

Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act”) have been applied on 26th

December 2025 and the Application to re-arrest was filed on 29th

January 2026 and the Order to re-arrest the Applicant has been

passed on 30th January 2026. He further submits that Section 111

of BNS and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act are identical in




                                Page 2
PPN
                                                935.APL-1516.26.DOC




punishment and fine amount and re-arrest for the said offence is

double jeopardy. He submits that the reasons mentioned in re-

arrest Application are already investigated and the Charge-sheet

has been filed.

4.    On the other hand, Mr. Walve, learned APP, submits that the

Order passed is in accordance with law. On instructions, he

submits that now even the Charge-sheet has also been filed under

the provisions of MCOC Act.

5.    Perusal of the record shows that, on 1st September 2025,

FIR No.636 of 2025 has been filed with Hinjawadi Police Station,

for the offences punishable under Section 325 of BNS, Sections 5C,

9A and 9B of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and

Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 . The

Applicant was arrested on 7th September 2025. When the

Applicant was in custody, Section 111 of BNS was applied with the

previous sanction on 11th September 2025 and the Charge-sheet

was filed on 30th October 2025. Thereafter, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pune by Order dated 1st December 2025 passed in

Criminal Bail Application No.6977 of 2025 has granted regular

bail. Thereafter, the provisions of the MCOC Act have been applied

on 26th December 2025 and the Application to re-arrest the



                              Page 3
PPN
                                                  935.APL-1516.26.DOC




Applicant was filed by the prosecution on 29th January 2026 and

the same has been immediately allowed on 30th January 2026.

6.    Section 111 of BNS is regarding organised crime. The said

Section has already been applied on 11th September 2025 with

previous sanction and the Charge-sheet has been filed and

thereafter only the Applicant has been released on bail.

7.    There is substance in the contention raised by Mr. Pawar,

learned Counsel for the Applicant, that Section 111 of BNS and

Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act, are identical in

punishment and fine amount.

8.    In any case, it is an admitted position that even under the

provisions of MCOC Act also the Charge-sheet has been filed.

Accordingly, it is not necessary to re-arrest the Accused for the

investigation, as observed by the learned Special Judge under

MCOC Court.

9.    Accordingly, the Order dated 30th January 2026 passed by

the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, District

and Sessions Court, Shivajinagar, Pune, is quashed and set aside.

10.   The Criminal Application is allowed in above terms.



                                         [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]



                               Page 4
PPN