Vaishali Nitin BhosaleversusThe state of Maharashtra Through Inspector incharge of Lonikand Police station

                                                  29-APPLN-276-2025.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.276 OF 2025


Vaishali Nitin Bhosale                                …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       …Respondents


Mr. Vaibhav Ugle, for the Applicant.
Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP, for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Priyal Sarda a/w. Mr. Shubham Sudam Sane, for Respondent
No.2.



                       CORAM:       MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :      21st SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-


1.       Heard Mr. Ugle, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Applicant, Mr. Jadhav, learned APP appearing for Respondent

No.1-State and Mr. Sarda, learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No.2.



2.       By this Application filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under Section 483(3) of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Applicant

is challenging the order dated 15th May 2025 passed by the learned




                                 Page 1
Sonali
                                                   29-APPLN-276-2025.DOC




Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, passed in Criminal Bail

Application No.2437 of 2025 by which, the anticipatory bail has

been granted to the Respondent No.2.



3.       The impugned order has been passed about 1 year and 4

months back. There is nothing on record to show that the

Respondent No.2 has misused the said liberty.



4.       It is the submission of Mr. Ugle      learned Counsel of the

Applicant that the Respondent No.2. has deliberately shown

incorrect boundaries in the registered Sale Deed.



5.       Perusal   of   the   record   shows   that   the   dispute   is

predominantly of civil in nature.



6.       The uncle of the Applicant (through Applicant who is

Constituted Attorney of his uncle) had filed Civil Writ Petition

No.15402 of 2023, which came to be disposed of by the Division

Bench of this Court by order dated 6 th December 2024. While

disposing of the said Writ Petition, the Division Bench made the

following observations in paragraphs 5 to 7:




                                  Page 2
Sonali
                                               29-APPLN-276-2025.DOC




         “5. Considering the nature of the grievance as
         made by the petitioner, we are of the opinion,
         that as the petitioner is claiming to be the owner
         of a part of the land in the said Gat number
         which according to the petitioner is 62.98 Ares,
         and which is open land of the ownership of the
         petitioner, as on date, it is necessary for the
         authorities to ascertain the correct area, and an
         actual measurement of the land which is being
         acquired from the petitioners existing holding.
         This for the reason that the grievance of the
         petitioners that although the petitioner is the
         owner of such land and the petitioners land being
         subject matter of acquisition, compensation is not
         being offered to the petitioner.

         6. In our opinion, all these issues would be within
         the jurisdiction of the Special Land Acquisition
         Officer/SDO who needs to undertake an
         appropriate inquiry and after ascertaining
         appropriate measurements, resort to demarcate
         the actual land from the petitioner’s holding, as
         sought to be acquired.

         7. Needless to observe that in so far as the lands
         which are already sold by the petitioner and
         which are of the ownership of third parties, if
         such lands are subject matter of acquisition, third
         parties would be entitled for compensation.
         However, an appropriate inquiry in this regard
         needs to be made so that there is clarity on the
         entitlement to the payment of compensation. We
         accordingly dispose of this petition by the
         following directions:

           i. The land from Gat No.44 subject matter of
           acquisition be appropriately ascertained by
           actual measurement and on verification of




                              Page 3
Sonali
                                                                  29-APPLN-276-2025.DOC




                              the ownership after an opportunity of a
                              hearing is granted to all the parties.

                              ii. After ascertaining the correct position on
                              the ownership and the area subject matter of
                              acquisition, the SLAO / SDO, Pune shall take
                              further appropriate steps, to acquire such
                              land by negotiation and on the entitlement
                              of the appropriate persons for payment of
                              compensation, in accordance with law.”

                                                          (Emphasis added)


               7.       Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, no case is

               made out for setting aside the order granting bail.



               8.       However, Mr. Ugale, learned Counsel appearing for the

               Applicant states that Respondent No.2 is Police Officer and

               pressurizing the Revenue Authorities. Mr. Sarda, learned Counsel

               appearing for Respondent No.2 denies the said contention.



               9.       Accordingly, the Criminal Application is disposed of.




                                                             [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
   SONALI
   MILIND
   PATIL
Digitally signed by
SONALI MILIND PATIL
Date: 2026.09.23
10:54:59 +0530




                                                 Page 4
               Sonali