Bombay High Court
OMKAR KVISHWANATH BHUREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that, despite the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant’s antecedents, pre‑trial detention was unnecessary and bail should be granted subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Omkar Vishwanath Bhure, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including alleged counterfeit currency dealings and assault. The informant alleged that Bhure offered to buy gold, received ₹60 lakh, and that the cash was taken by co‑accused including a police officer, with the transaction later claimed to involve counterfeit currency. The prosecution highlighted the seriousness of the charges, recorded conversations, the applicant’s relationship with the informant, and a pending counterfeit case in Telangana as grounds to deny bail. The defence argued that the informant’s version changed, no money was recovered, and that stringent bail conditions could mitigate any risk. After weighing the gravity of the accusations, the applicant’s antecedents, and the risk of flight or witness interference, the court granted bail with a personal bond and multiple conditions, and disposed of the accompanying criminal application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita given the seriousness of the offences charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of flight, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
- Whether the inconsistency in the informant’s statements affects the credibility assessment at the bail stage.
- Whether the pending counterfeit currency case in Telangana is relevant to the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 309(6), 316(2), 318(4), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- counterfeit currency
- witness tampering
- Section 483 BNS
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- India
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43456
-1-
BA-1403-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1403 OF 2026
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3097 OF 2026
OMKAR VISHWANATH BHURE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
..…
Mr. Suraj R. Bagal h/f. Mr. Bharat N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for
Applicant .
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, Advocate for Respondent – State.
Mr. P. S. Anerao, Advocate for informant/Assist to APP (Thr. V.C.)
.....
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER :
1. By present application , the applicant - Omkar Vishwanath
Bhure seeks regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 23
of 2026 registered at Loha Police Station, District Nanded, for
offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 309(6),
351(2) and (3), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
2. It is the case of the informant Sachin Khedkar, as alleged
in the First Information report dated 20th January, 2026 that the
applicant, who happens to be his relative, offered to supply gold
worth ₹1 crore for ₹60 lakh. According to the report, the applicant
-2-
BA-1403-2026
called him to a building which is an under construction building at
Pardi on 17th January, 2026, received the cash and left on the
pretext of bringing the gold. The informant subsequently stated
that the proposed transaction concerned counterfeit currency, and
that Co-accused Rajesh Munde, who is a police officer, and other co
accused arrived at the building, assaulted and threatened the
informant, and took away the cash. The additional offences were
then accordingly invoked. The investigation has resulted in filing
of a charge sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
informant has given materially different accounts of the purpose
and manner of the transaction. He points out that no part of the
alleged ₹60 lakh has been recovered from the applicant, who has
remained in custody since 29th January, 2026. He submits that the
investigation is complete, the applicant has a fixed residence, and
his attendance can be secured by conditions. Reliance is also placed
on the interim protection granted to the co-accused Rajesh Munde.
4. The learned APP opposes bail. He submits that the
applicant is alleged to have arranged the meeting and brought the
informant to the place where the cash was taken. The prosecution
relies on the statements of persons present, material concerning
the informant’s injuries, and recorded conversations between the
-3-
BA-1403-2026
applicant and the informant after the incident. It also points to a
pending case registered against the applicant in Telangana
concerning counterfeit currency and expresses apprehension that,
if released, he may influence witnesses or assist the other accused.
5. Upon hearing the respective counsels and perusing the
investigation report it can be stated that the allegations are
serious. Section 309(6) of BNS carries a substantial punishment,
including the possibility of imprisonment for life. The Applicants
submissions that the change in the version of the complainant
from a proposed gold purchase transaction to a counterfeit
currency transaction is material, but its effect on the credibility of
the informant cannot be finally decided at the bail stage. Neither
can the case be treated as a purely civil dispute nor as one without
supporting material. The recorded conversations, including the
alleged suggestion by the applicant about what the informant
should tell the police, require examination at trial. The pending
antecedent of Telangana case is also relevant to the assessment of
risk, although it is still a pending trial and have not led into
conviction.
6. While considering the application for bail the Court must
consider the applicant’s particular role, the gravity of the
accusation, his antecedents, and the risks of flight, repetition of
-4-
BA-1403-2026
commission of offence or interference with witnesses; it must do so
without conducting a trial on the evidence. Here in the present
case, the applicant has been in custody for nearly eight months and
the charge sheet has been filed. The allegation that Co-accused
Rajesh Munde and the persons accompanying him took the cash
calls for distinct consideration of their respective roles. Nothing
has been recovered from the applicant. The prosecution’s concern
about witness influence is real, particularly because the applicant
and informant are related, but it can presently be addressed by
stringent conditions. Interim protection granted to Co accused
Munde is not, by itself, a ground of parity for the applicant.
7. Having weighed these circumstances together, I am
satisfied that further pretrial detention of the applicant is
unnecessary, provided his liberty is curtailed by imposing
stringent conditions. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 23
of 2026 registered at Loha Police Station, District Nanded, on
furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one or two
sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned court, subject to the following conditions:
a) He shall attend every date before the trial court
-5-
BA-1403-2026
unless exempted by that court, and shall cooperate
with any further investigation lawfully undertaken.
b) He shall not contact, threaten, induce or otherwise
approach the informant or any prosecution witness,
directly or through another person, concerning this
case.
c) He shall report to Loha Police Station on the first
Monday of each month between 10.00 a.m. and
12.00 noon for three months from his release.
d) He shall give the investigating officer and the trial
court his current residential address and mobile
number and shall promptly notify them of any
change.
e) He shall not leave India without the trial court’s
prior permission.
f) He shall not tamper with evidence or obstruct the
trial. The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if
any condition is breached.
g) The Trial Court shall decide the case independently
of the observations in this order.
(iii) In view of disposal of Bail Application, Criminal
Application No. 3097 Of 2026 also stands disposed. of.
(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
JUDGE
Tandale
Checking your session…