Bombay High Court
YOGESH SURESH JADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant subject to a personal bond and conditions to prevent evidence tampering and witness influence.
Summary
Yogesh Suresh Jadhav, an advocate, was charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for preparing false and forged documents to provide surety and impersonating the original surety before the trial court. He applied for regular bail, arguing that co‑accused advocates with similar allegations had been granted anticipatory bail and that he had no prior criminal record despite having been in custody for over fourteen months. The prosecution contended that Jadhav was the principal offender and posed a risk of absconding or influencing witnesses, urging denial of bail. The Court examined the charge‑sheet, the similarity of the co‑accused cases, and the applicant’s lack of antecedents, and concluded that bail could be granted with conditions. Accordingly, the Court ordered his release on a Rs.25,000 personal bond with sureties, imposing conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and to attend police as required, while directing the trial court to continue the trial on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 59(a), 61(2), 111(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the risk of absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to co‑accused with similar allegations influences the bail decision for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 59(a), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- forgery
- false documents
- impersonation
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- witness tampering
- trial court
Judgment
33-BA-2197-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2197 OF 2025
Yogesh Suresh Jadhav ...Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Subhash Jha (Through V.C.) a/w Ms.Sabiha Ansari, Mr.Chetan
Gogawale, Mr.Dhammaraj Shejul, Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar and Hulyalkar &
NILAM
Digitally signed
by NILAM
SANTOSH
Associates, for the Applicant.
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.05.05
11:39:21 +0530
Mr.P.P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr.Shashikant N. Londhe, PSI, Wanvadi Police Station.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL 2026
P.C. :
. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No.11 of 2025 registered with Wanwadi Police Station, Pune, for the
offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2),
59(a), 61(2), 111(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (‘BNS’ for short).
2. It is prosecution’s case that the Applicant is advocate, he and co-
accused prepared false and forged documents to give surety on behalf of
original Accused in bail matters of the Applicant and impersonated the
Page 1 of 3
33-BA-2197-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
original surety before the trial Court, and allowed the Bail Applications of
the concerned accused.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that co-
accused Advocate Rahul Lonandkar and Reshma Salunkhe against whom
similar allegations are levelled have been released on anticipatory bail. The
allegations against those co-accused and the Applicant are similar. The
Applicant is behind bars for more than 14 months. The Applicant has no
antecedents. The Applicant is an Advocate, and requested to allow the
Application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant is the main
culprit who forged and fabricated the documents to give surety for the
Accused in concerned crime before the trial Court. If the Applicant released
on bail, he may abscond or threaten and prosecution witnesses, and
requested to reject the Application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and
documents produced on record.
6. The allegations against the Applicant are similar to the co-
accused Advocate Rahul Lonandkar and Reshma Salunkhe who have been
released on bail. The Applicant is behind bars for more than fourteen
months. The Applicant has no antecedents. It may take time to conclude
Page 2 of 3
33-BA-2197-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
the trial.
7. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Applicant be released on bail in Crime No.11 of
2025 registered with Wanwadi Police Station, Pune, on
furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent
sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence
and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own
merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.
(iv) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when required.
(v) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…