Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

Ajithkumar Rameshwar Tiwari And Anr.versusThe State of Maharashtra Through Vaduj Police Station

Disposal
Allowed

Holding

Imposing a monetary deposit condition while granting bail is unreasonable and contrary to the precedent, therefore the condition must be set aside.

Summary

The applicants, Ajithkumar Rameshwar Tiwari and another, filed a criminal application under Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking relief from Condition No.3 of a bail order dated 03‑02‑2026, which required each of them to deposit Rs.2 lakhs in cash. They argued, relying on the judgments in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra and Prantik Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, that such a monetary condition is unreasonable and contrary to law. The State did not contest the legal principle. The Court examined the precedent and concluded that imposing a cash‑deposit condition while granting bail is indeed unreasonable. Consequently, the Court set aside Condition No.3, allowed the application, and disposed of the matter.

Issues considered

  • Whether Condition No.3 requiring a cash deposit of Rs.2 lakhs each is permissible under Section 483(1)(b) of the BNSS.
  • Whether the precedents set in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra and Prantik Kumar v. State of Jharkhand preclude such monetary conditions in bail orders.
  • Whether the bail order should be modified to remove the deposit condition.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • conditional bail
  • cash deposit condition
  • unreasonable condition
  • criminal procedure
  • Section 483
  • BNSS
  • precedent

Judgment

                                                                       11-APPLN-29-2026 (CR).odt




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CR. APPLICATION NO. 29 OF 2026

Ajithkumar Rameshwar Tiwari & Anr.                           .....Applicants
      VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through Vaduj Police Station                                .....Respondent

                                   ...
Mr. Ghadge Avesh Ajay, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. Anand Shalgaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
                                   ...


                                            CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                            DATE  : AUGUST 27, 2026
PER COURT :

1.               The Applicants, being dissatisfied with the order dated 11 th June

2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj, have preferred

this Application under Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the “BNSS”), seeking relaxation/modification of

Condition No. 3 in the operative part of the order dated 03.02.2026.

2.       Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for

the State.

3.       Learned Advocate for the Applicants contended that, in view of the

mandate laid down in the judgment and order in Gajanan Dattatray Gore

versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1 and Prantik Kumar and Anr. versus The
1    Cr. Appeal No.3219 of 2025 decided on 28th July 2025

Suresh                                                                               Page 1 of 2
                                                                  11-APPLN-29-2026 (CR).odt



State of Jharkhand and Anr.2, the Court should not pass a conditional order

directing the accused to deposit a particular amount and then exercise its

discretion; as such, he urged that imposition of such condition is

unreasonable and prayed for allowing the Application.

4.              In response, the learned APP does not dispute the law laid down

in both the orders.

5.              Having considered the facts of the case as well as the

observations made in the aforesaid judgment and order, in my view, the

imposition of the condition directing the accused to deposit a particular

amount while granting bail is unreasonable and contrary to the mandate laid

down in the case of Gajanan (supra). It would be appropriate to relax

Condition No. 3, whereby the Applicants were directed to deposit an amount

of Rs. 2 lakhs each in cash before the Court. Accordingly, to that extent, the

said condition needs to be set aside.

6.              As a result, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(b). Accordingly, clause No. 3 of the operative part of the order dated

03.02.2026 in the Bail Application no. 210/2025 is set aside. The application is

disposed of.

                                                         (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)



2. Cr. SLP Diary No.4297 of 2026 decided on 03-02-2026

Suresh                                                                          Page 2 of 2


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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