Bombay High Court
Mangesh Dipak KalokheversusThe State of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The bail condition requiring a Rs.2,00,000 deposit is unsustainable and is set aside.
Summary
Mangesh Dipak Kalokhe applied under Section 528 of the BNSS for relaxation of bail condition 2(a) which required him to deposit Rs.2,00,000 as a pre‑condition for release. The Additional Judge of the Special Court, MCOCA, Pune had imposed the condition despite granting bail, and the lower court rejected the applicant’s request, causing him to remain in custody for two months. The applicant argued that the monetary condition caused extreme hardship, while the State contended it was justified given the alleged offences. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Gajanan D. Gore v. State of Maharashtra and Prantik Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, held that bail should not be conditioned on a deposit of money and that such conditions are unsustainable. Consequently, the court set aside condition 2(a) and allowed the bail application, leaving the rest of the bail order unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether a bail condition requiring the deposit of a monetary amount is permissible under Section 528 of the BNSS.
- Whether the imposition of such a monetary condition violates Supreme Court precedents that bail must be decided on merits without financial undertakings.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
Subjects
- bail
- monetary condition
- Section 528 BNSS
- Supreme Court precedent
- MCOCA
- hardship
- conditional bail
Judgment
1-APPLN-201-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by GAYATRI
GAYATRI RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA
SHIMPI
SHIMPI
Date:
2026.06.18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
19:22:24 +0530
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2026
Mangesh Dipak Kalokhe … Applicant
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
-----
Ms. Nishi Singhvi a/w Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, Advocates for
Applicant.
Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, APP for the Respondent – State.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026
Oral Order :-
1. Heard Ms. Nishi Singhvi, learned Advocate for the
Applicant and Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, APP for the Respondent –
State.
2. By the present Application filed under Section 528 of
the BNSS, the Applicant is before this Court, raising a grievance
against Bail Condition 2(a) of the order dated 16.04.2026 passed
in Special Case No. 697 of 2024, by which the Additional Judge,
Special Court, MCOCA, Pune, has directed the Applicant to deposit
Rs.2,00,000/- as a pre-condition for release on bail.
Gayatri shimpi 1
1-APPLN-201-2026.doc
3. Application (Exhibit 33) filed by the Applicant for
relaxation of bail condition No.2(a) in Special Case No.697 of
2024 was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge & District
Judge-7, Pune vide order dated 20.05.2026.
4. Ms. Nishi Singhvi, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant is unable to comply with the Bail
Condition 2(a) in the order dated 16.04.2026 passed in Special
Case No. 697 of 2024 of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- due to extreme
hardship. As such, despite the Applicant being released on bail by
order dated 16.04.2026, passed on Exhibit – 32 in Special Case
No. 697 of 2024, the Applicant has remained in jail for almost two
months.
5. Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the State,
submits that the imposition of the Bail Condition 2(a) in the order
dated 16.04.2026 passed in Special Case No. 697 of 2024 is
justified in view of the allegations and the offence committed by
the Applicant. She therefore opposes the request made by Ms.
Nishi Singhvi, learned Advocate for the Applicant.
Gayatri shimpi 2
1-APPLN-201-2026.doc
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan
Dattatray Gore Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1, in paragraph
Nos. 15 to 22 has made the following observations :-
“15. We have noticed over a period of time that orders
of regular bail and anticipatory bail are being passed by
different High Courts subject to deposit of some
amount.
16. We have come across cases like the one in hand
where accused persons have gone to the extent of filing
affidavits in the form of undertaking that they would
deposit a particular amount within a particular period
and then conveniently resile from such undertakings
saying it is an onerous condition.
17. In some cases, perhaps the accused may abide by
such undertaking, but our experience so far has been
that in many cases the accused later would not abide
and flout the undertaking. In many cases it would be
argued on behalf of the accused that he had never
made such a statement and the court on its own had
recorded in the order that the accused is ready and
willing to deposit a particular amount. At times the
entire blame is thrown on the lawyer in making such
statement for the purpose of obtaining order of bail or
anticipatory bail as the case may be. In such
circumstances, the concerned court would be left with
no other option but to cancel the bail either at the
instance of the State or the original complainant.
18. The case in hand is one in which the appellant on
his own free will and volition filed an affidavit in the
form of an undertaking before the High Court that he
would deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- but
ultimately resiled to do so and the High Court had to
cancel the bail. It was too much for the lawyer of the
appellant to argue before the High Court that asking his
client to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- was unreasonable. It
reflects on the professional ethics.
19. By this order, we make it clear and that too in the
form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any
of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of
regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that
the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571
Gayatri shimpi 3
1-APPLN-201-2026.doc
of obtaining appropriate reliefs.
20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall
decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail
strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and
the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this
regard on any undertaking or any statement that the
accused may be ready and willing to make.
21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are
taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining
the dignity and honor of the court.
22. We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as
the Trial Courts across the country do not commit the
same mistake again.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prantik
Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr 2., in paragraph
Nos. 8 & 9 has made the following observations:-
“8. It is very unfortunate that despite this Court saying
in so many words that grant of regular bail or the
anticipatory bail should not be subject to deposit of any
amount, the High Court has said that the petitioners
should deposit the balance amount of Rs. 9,12,926.84.
9. In our Judgment, referred to above, we made
ourselves very clear that if a case for grant of bail or
anticipatory bail is made out, then the Court should
proceed to pass an appropriate order and if not made
out, the Court may decline, however, Court should not
pass a conditional order of deposit of a particular
amount and then exercise its discretion.”
8. The order dated 16.04.2026 passed in Special Case No.
697 of 2024 indicates that the Additional Judge, Special Court,
MCOCA, Pune, was satisfied that the Applicant was entitled to bail
2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 925
Gayatri shimpi 4
1-APPLN-201-2026.doc
and accordingly ordered his release on bail.
9. In view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the above-referred decision, condition No. 2(a) of the
order dated 16.04.2026, passed on Exhibit – 32 in Special Case
No. 697 of 2024, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the same is set aside.
10. This Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 19
(b). Consequently, condition No. 2(a) of the order dated
16.04.2026 passed on Exhibit – 32 in Special Case No. 697 of 2024
stands deleted.
11. The remaining order dated 16.04.2026, passed on
Exhibit – 32 in Special Case No. 697 of 2024, stands unaltered.
12. Criminal Bail Application No. 201 of 2026 is allowed.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Gayatri shimpi 5
Checking your session…