Bombay High Court
SAGAR MADHUKAR LANDGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sagar Madhukar Landge, who was charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959 for alleged offences arising from a deteriorating live‑in relationship with the prosecutrix. The FIR was lodged on 23 January 2025, several months after the alleged incidents, and the court noted the substantial delay as a factor casting doubt on the credibility of the informant’s allegations. The prosecution had not produced any substantive evidence to substantiate the claims of extortion and blackmail. Relying on the lack of material evidence and the suspicious delay in filing the FIR, the court found that the applicant had made out a clear case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail with standard conditions and clarified that the order was limited to bail without prejudice to the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of corroborative evidence justify the grant of bail to the accused.
- Whether the allegations of extortion and blackmail, as pleaded, are sufficiently substantiated to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 3(25)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 127(3), 299, 3(5), 351(2)(3), 352, 64(2)(m), 70(1)
- Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998 — s. Regulation 18(1)
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- live‑in relationship
- extortion
- blackmail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- legal aid
- Maharashtra
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV 44-ba-3497-25.doc
JADHAV Date:
2026.09.23
13:43:10
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3497 OF 2025
Sagar Madhukar Landge .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Pooja Agarwal (through VC) a/w Mr. Prakash Chavan and Mr.
Ashraf Kazi, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Shantanu Nakashe, Advocate appointed through Legal Aid for
Respondent No.2.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Agarwal (through VC), learned Advocate for
Applicant, Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 - State and
Mr. Nakashe, learned Advocate appointed through Legal Aid for
Respondent No.2 - prosecutrix.
2. By this Bail Application, Applicant is seeking enlargement on
bail in C.R. No. 51 of 2025 registered with Vimantal Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 70(1), 64(2)(m), 126(2),
127(3), 299, 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. With the able assistance of the learned Advocates I have
perused the material placed on record. Prima facie the FIR statement
lodged on 23.01.2025 is with regard to the four specific episodes
between 25.05.2024 and 03.10.2024 and it prima facie shows that the
prosecutrix/first informant was infact in a live-in-relationship with the
Meera Jadhav 1 of 4
44-ba-3497-25.doc
present Applicant. There is prima facie material placed on record
placed by the prosecution in the form of witness statements of the
house owner as also the neighbour, to whom the prosecutrix/first
informant had conveyed that the Applicant was her husband and they
both were the husband and wife.
4. In view of the relationship between the Applicant and
prosecutrix/first informant turning sour and they having constant
fights the present FIR was filed on 23.01.2025. FIR came to be lodged
after a substantial delay and that itself renders the lodging of FIR
suspicious in the above circumstances. If the version narrated by the
first informant is to be believed, then, in fact, after the first alleged
episode, stated to have occurred on 24.04.2025, there was no reason
whatsoever for the her to return to and reside with the present
Applicant thereafter.
5. The allegations of extortion and blackmailing levelled
against the Applicant also do not, prima facie, stand substantiated at
this stage, as there is no material placed on record by the prosecution
in support thereof. The delay in lodging the FIR, in the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, therefore, cannot enure to the benefit of the first
informant. The Applicant has made out a clear case for grant of bail.
The Applicant is therefore granted bail.
Meera Jadhav 2 of 4
44-ba-3497-25.doc
6. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
(i) Applicant – Sagar Madhukar Landge is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with Crime
No. 51 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Vimantal Police Station, once every month on the first
Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments,
if he does so it will entitle the prosecution to apply for
revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and / or
Meera Jadhav 3 of 4
44-ba-3497-25.doc
change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to
time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
7. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited
for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
8. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Nakashe,
learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the
cause of Respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix). His fees be paid by the High
Court Legal Aid Services Authority as per rules on production of a
server copy of this order and other compliances in accordance with the
decision of this Court in the case of Sanjyot Nitin Telharkar v. The State
of Maharashtra & Anr1 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1) of the
Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998.
9. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
1 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.134 of 2024.
Meera Jadhav 4 of 4
Checking your session…