Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

Prabhavati Vitthal WadkarversusThe State of Maharashtra

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court disposed of the criminal applications without addressing the merits, holding that the pending ‘B’ Summary precludes consideration of the anticipatory bail challenge.

Summary

The petitioners, Prabhavati Vitthal Wadkar, challenged the anticipatory bail orders dated 6 May 2026 granted by a Special Judge under the POCSO Act and an Additional Sessions Judge in four separate bail applications. The State of Maharashtra filed a ‘B’ Summary in Crime No.193 of 2026 for offences under Sections 70(1), 351(3), 356(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The High Court held that because a ‘B’ Summary had been filed, it was premature to consider the bail challenge and therefore disposed of the applications. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits and that the petitioners could file fresh applications if the trial court rejects the ‘B’ Summary. Consequently, the applications were dismissed pending the outcome of the ‘B’ Summary.

Issues considered

  • Whether the anticipatory bail orders granted by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge are legally valid.
  • Whether the filing of a ‘B’ Summary bars the Court from entertaining the challenge to the anticipatory bail orders at this stage.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • B summary
  • criminal application
  • procedural law
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • POCSO Act

Judgment

                                                                        09-APPLN-208-2026 & 10-12.doc


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.208 OF 2026
ARJUN                 Prabhavati Vitthal Wadkar                                 ...Applicant
VITTHAL                       Versus
KUDHEKAR
Digitally signed by
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ...Respondents
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.09.23
                                                   WITH
20:38:54 +0530
                                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2026

                      Prabhavati Vitthal Wadkar                                 ...Applicant
                              Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ...Respondents

                                                   WITH
                                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2026

                      Prabhavati Vitthal Wadkar                                 ...Applicant
                              Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ...Respondents

                                                   WITH
                                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.212 OF 2026

                      Prabhavati Vitthal Wadkar                                 ...Applicant
                              Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ...Respondents

                                                     ——————
                      Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, for the Applicants.
                      Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                      PSI Pankaj Hole, Hinjawadi Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune,
                      present.
                                                    ——————

                                                             Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
                                                             Date: 22 September 2026
                      P.C.:


                      Arjun                              1
                                                   09-APPLN-208-2026 & 10-12.doc


1.      In these Criminal Applications, the challenge is to the legality and

validity of the Order dated 6th May 2026 passed by the learned Special

Judge (under POCSO Act) & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal

Bail Application Nos.1710 of 2026, 1677 of 2026, 1695 of 2026 and 1674

of 2026, respectively. By the impugned Orders, anticipatory bail has

been granted to the private Respondents.

2.      However, at the outset, Ms. Yadav, learned APP, for the

Respondent-State, states that a ‘B’ Summary has been filed in Crime

No.193 of 2026 (wrongly mentioned as Crime No.193 of 2025),

registered with Hinjawadi Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, for

the offences punishable under Sections 70(1), 351(3), 356(2) and 3(5) of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

3.      In view of the filing of the ‘B’ Summary, it is not necessary to

consider the challenge to the impugned Orders granting anticipatory

bail to the Accused at this stage.

4.      However, if, upon consideration of the protest petition against

the said ‘B’ Summary, the learned Trial Court rejects the ‘B’ Summary,

the Applicant is granted leave to file fresh Criminal Application in that

event.

5.      Accordingly, the Criminal Applications are disposed of, subject to

above.

6.      It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits, as a ‘B’


Arjun                                 2
                                             09-APPLN-208-2026 & 10-12.doc


Summary has been filed and all contentions on merits are expressly kept

open.



                                              [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




Arjun                             3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.