Bombay High Court
AJIT GENBA DAGADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The arrest was illegal because the statutory notices under Sections 35(3) and 46(2) of the BNSS were not complied with, and therefore bail must be granted.
Summary
The applicant, Ajit Genba Dagade, filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, claiming that he was arrested without being named in the FIR and without the required notices under Sections 35(3) and 46(2) of the BNSS. The court examined the remand report and the statutory notices, noting that the arrest mirrored the facts of Omkar Balkrushna Gade & ors. v. State of Maharashtra, where the court held such arrests illegal due to non‑compliance with the notice provisions. The prosecution’s report addressed only the merits and did not explain the notice deficiency, reinforcing the claim of an illegal arrest. Consequently, the court found the arrest unlawful and, despite the seriousness of the alleged offences, granted bail on strict conditions. The bail order was issued, directing immediate release upon furnishing a bond and imposing reporting and conduct requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether the arrest of the applicant was illegal due to non‑compliance with Sections 35(3) and 46(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail when the arrest is deemed illegal despite the nature of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35(3), 46(2), 47(1)(2), 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108, 111(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 351(2), 62(2)
Subjects
- bail
- illegal arrest
- due process
- BNSS
- Section 35
- Section 46
- criminal procedure
- Maharashtra
Judgment
71. BA-3766-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3766 OF 2026
Ajit Genba Dagade .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Rachit Khamparia a/w N.V. Sharma, Mohammad Sayyed &
Pandurang Andhale, Advocates for Applicant
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State
Mr. Shailesh Kharat a/w Mr. Vinod Kendre, Mr. Govind Mundhe,
Mr. Parthraj Ware & Mr. Bharat Shinde, Advocates for Intervenor /
First Informant
PSI, Manjari Police Station
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Khamparia, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.
Newton, learned APP for State and Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for
Intervenor / First Informant.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime
No. 98/2026 registered with Manjari Police Station, Pune on
06.07.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 62(2), 108,
111(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2) read with
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
1 of 5
71. BA-3766-26.odt
3. On 07.10.2026 after hearing the learned Advocates appearing
for the parties, this Court passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Mr. Khamparia, learned Counsel for the Applicant
and Ms. Newton, learned APP for the Respondent – State.
2. Case of the Applicant stems from the fact that the Applicant is
not named in the FIR, but has been arrested illegally. Learned Advocate has
drawn my attention to page No. 65 which is the remand report dated
05.08.2026. Next he has drawn my attention to page No. 68 which i s
t h e Section 47(1)(2) notice which i s issued t o h im on 05.08.2026
and the time is kept blank. Next he has drawn my attention to page No. 70
which is the Section 35(3) notice issued to him on 05.08.2026. Prima
facie, case of the Applicant is squarely covered by the decision of this
Court in the case of Omkar Balkrushna Gade & ors. vs. The State of
Maharashtra decided by this Court on 10.09.2026 in B. A. No. 2899 of
2026. Paragraph No. 8 of the said decision, wherein the facts are
absolutely identical to the facts before me in the present case, reads
thus:-
"8. However, in viewof non compliance of the provisions of
subsections(3), (4) and(6) of Section 35 of the BNSS, the
arrestof both the Applicants on the same date and at the same
time while simultaneously handing ov er notices under the
above Section 35 BNSS to them is therefore, illegal. Sub-
section (6) categorically states that where such person at any
time fails to comply with the terms of the notice, (issued under
Section 35(3) of the BNSS) or is unwilling to identify himself,
the Police Officer may, subject to suc h orders asmay have
been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for
the offence mentioned in the notice.”
3. In that view of the matter, the prosecution shall immediately take
instructions and apprise the Court about the veracity of the submissions
made by the learned Advocate which are quoted herein above and
inform the Court accordingly on next date.
4. List the matter on 09.10.2026, First On Board."
4. Today, learned APP pursuant to the said order has placed before
the Court a report dated 08.10.2026. The said report is entirely on the
merits of the matter. The order which is reflected above prima facie
calls upon the prosecution to explain its role with regard to issuance of
the notices under Sections 35(3) and 46(2) of BNSS, which are
2 of 5
71. BA-3766-26.odt
appended to the Bail Application. The report which is placed before
me is entirely on the merits without a semblance of a sentence or word
with regard to the action of the prosecution with regard to issuance of
the aforesaid two statutory notices under the provisions of the BNSS.
The case of the Applicant is, therefore, covered by the decision of this
Court as being that of an illegal arrest as determined by this Court in
the case of Omkar Balkrushna Gade & Ors. (supra). In that view of the
matter, I am inclined to consider the present Application of the
Applicant.
5. At this juncture, Mr. Kharat, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the Intervenor / first informant enters appearance and
persuades me to allow him to intervene. Insofar as the present issue is
concerned for grant of bail, I need not even hear the first informant
because of the exigency shown by the prosecution in arresting the
Applicant without following the due process of law. Nevertheless, I
have heard Mr. Kharat.
6. Mr. Kharat would submit that the Applicant is indicted in a
serious offenses i.e. abetment of suicide and siphoning of family funds
including forgery and cheating. Mr. Kharat may be absolutely right
but that can only be applicable and possible if the prosecution follows
the due process of law. In the present case, once it is prima facie seen
that the arrest of the Applicant is illegal, the Court will have to step in
3 of 5
71. BA-3766-26.odt
because the rule of law pervades and prevails in this Country which
the prosecution should know. In that view of the matter, the Applicant
is entitled to be released on bail forthwith. Hence, the Applicant is
granted bail on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released on bail
from prison in connection with Crime No. 98 of 2026;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
concerned 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 any of the witnesses or
4 of 5
71. BA-3766-26.odt
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 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. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in
the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.10.09
20:50:23
+0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.