Bombay High Court

NEWIN SANJAY MANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: MEHROZ K PATHAN

Holding

The court held that, given the gravity of the offences and the sufficient evidentiary material linking the applicant, anticipatory bail could not be granted.

Summary

Rahul alias Bunty Dilip Bhingardive applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 140(2), 308(5) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging extortion, kidnapping for ransom, dacoity and assault with a dangerous weapon. The prosecution alleged that Bhingardive was the main conspirator, citing the FIR, eyewitness statements, injury certificate and call‑detail records linking him to the accused Ganesh Borude. The applicant contended that he was implicated only on a co‑accused’s statement, had no material connecting him to the crime, and was ready to cooperate, invoking a prior anticipatory bail for a separate IPC 326 offence. The State argued that the applicant had a prior criminal antecedent and that the evidence was sufficient to establish his involvement. The bench, after reviewing the material, found the offences gravely serious and the evidentiary record adequate, and therefore rejected the anticipatory bail application, disposing of the criminal application as well.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving serious offences such as kidnapping for ransom, extortion, dacoity and assault with a dangerous weapon under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the material on record – FIR, eyewitness statements, injury certificate and call‑detail records – is sufficient to connect the applicant to the alleged crime for the purpose of denying bail.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedent affects the discretion to grant anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 140(2), 308(5), 3(5)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 326, 34, 504, 506

Subjects

anticipatory bail
kidnapping for ransom
extortion
dacoity
assault with dangerous weapon
serious offences
bail jurisprudence
evidentiary material
criminal antecedent

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4726

931 ABA NO. 2190 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2190 OF 2025
Rahul Alias Bunty Dilip Bhingardive
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
…
• Ms. S. G. Sonawane, Advocate for Applicant
• Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent – State
• Mr. S. S. Tone, Advocate for the Informant
…
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2026
IN ABA/2190/2025
…
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 28.01.2026
PER COURT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP as also

learned counsel for the informant.

2. The applicant has approached this Court seeking anticipatory

bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 1014 of 2025, registered

on 02.11.2025 with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, Taluka and

District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections

140(2), 308(5) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant, along with

his friends, was proceeding in a Bolero vehicle to visit a temple.

Accused Nos. 1 to 4 arrived in another vehicle, forcibly made the

Jhs/ 1/4
931 ABA NO. 2190 OF 2025

informant sit in their vehicle, threatened him, and took him to Sinnar.

Accused No. 4, namely Ganesh Borude, assaulted the complainant

with a sickle on his left wrist and back and demanded an amount of

Rs. 20,00,000/-, stating that the said demand was made at the behest

of the present applicant – Rahul alias Bunty Dilip Bhingardive.

Consequently, the FIR came to be registered against the present

applicant and other accused persons for the aforesaid offences at

Kotwali Police Station.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

arrayed as an accused only on the basis of the statement of a co-

accused, which is not an admissible piece of evidence. It is further

submitted that the applicant has rivalry with the complainant and has

been falsely roped in the present crime. The informant has several

criminal cases registered against him. One of the absconding accused,

Ganesh Borude, is a friend of both the informant and the applicant

and, therefore, merely on suspicion, the applicant has been involved

in the present crime. There is no material to connect the applicant

with the alleged offence. Other accused persons have already been

arrested. The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation

and will not flee from justice. Except for one offence under Section

326 of the IPC, in which the applicant has already been granted

anticipatory bail, there are no criminal antecedents. Hence, prayer is

Jhs/ 2/4
931 ABA NO. 2190 OF 2025

made for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. As against this, learned APP as well as learned counsel for the

informant vehemently oppose the application on the ground that the

applicant is a habitual offender and has criminal antecedents,

including an offence of bodily injury registered in the year 2012

under Section 326 of the IPC. The applicant is specifically named in

the FIR by the complainant Nevin Sanjay Mane. The allegations are

corroborated by the statements of witnesses Prathamesh Kale and

Raju Kurhade. The Call Detail Records (CDR) of the present applicant

and absconding accused Ganesh Borude show communication

between them at the relevant time. The injury certificate reveals that

the complainant sustained five Contused Lacerated Wounds (CLWs).

The offence is serious in nature involving allegations of extortion,

dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, and assault with a dangerous

weapon, which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Hence, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. I have perused the investigation papers produced by the

learned APP. The FIR itself reveals that the applicant is specifically

named as the main conspirator in the offence of kidnapping for

ransom. The main accused, Ganesh Borude, is alleged to have

assaulted the complainant with a sickle. There are eye-witnesses to

the incident, namely Prathamesh Kale and Raju Kurhade, who have

Jhs/ 3/4
931 ABA NO. 2190 OF 2025

narrated the incident in detail. Witness Pramod has also spoken

about the kidnapping incident in his presence, wherein the

complainant was abducted by accused Ganesh Borude, Krushna

Padale, and Mauli Pawar. The injury certificate shows that the

complainant Nevin Sanjay Mane sustained five Contused Lacerated

Wounds (CLWs). Though the said injuries are simple in nature and

not on vital parts of the body, they corroborate the allegations made

in the FIR. The Call Detail Records (CDR) of the applicant further

indicate telephonic contact between the applicant and absconding

accused Ganesh Borude at the relevant time. The applicant also has

one criminal antecedent being Crime No. 129 of 2012 registered with

Bhingar Camp Police Station, Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable

under Sections 326, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. Thus, there is sufficient material on record to connect the

applicant with the present crime.

7. Considering the gravity of the offence, which is punishable

with death or imprisonment for life, I am not inclined to exercise the

discretion under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the anticipatory bail

application is rejected. In view of the above, Criminal Application

No. 47 of 2026 is also disposed of.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )
Jhs/ 4/4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…