Bombay High Court

MAHADEV PANDHARI MANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

Mere presence of the accused at the alleged bribe transaction, without any other incriminating material, does not justify denial of bail, and regular bail was granted under Section 483 BNSS.

Summary

The applicant, Mahadev Pandhari Mane, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was present when a bribe of Rs.5,50,000 was handed to another accused during an Anti-Corruption Bureau raid, but no direct evidence linked him to the transaction. The applicant argued that his presence alone should not constitute material for denial of bail. The court observed that the applicant is a private person, the investigation is complete, and there is no specific evidence of his participation, while the maximum punishment is seven years. Consequently, the court granted regular bail with standard conditions, noting that custodial interrogation is unwarranted.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS despite being present at the alleged bribe transaction.
Whether mere presence at the scene constitutes sufficient material to deny bail.
Whether the investigation being complete and the applicant being a private person justify release on bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 121(1), 127(2), 132, 3(5), 351, 351(2), 352
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 12, 7, 7A

Subjects

bail
regular bail
Prevention of Corruption Act
BNSS
bribery
criminal procedure
private person

Judgment

1/6
44-BA-913-2026 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 913 OF 2026

Mahadev Pandhari Mane …...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. …...Respondents

----

Mr. Kunal V. Patil a/w Ms. Rajnandini P. Katkar, for Applicant.
Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State.
-------

Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DHUDUM Date:
2026.10.08
19:13:07
+0530 DATE : 7th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C.

1. Heard, Mr. Kunal V. Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant

and Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and

2 – State.

2. By the present Application filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the

Applicant seeks Regular Bail in connection with Crime No. 411 of 2026

registered at Malshiras Police Station, District Solapur, for offences

punishable under Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/6
44-BA-913-2026 (CR).DOC

3. Mr. Kunal V. Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that

there are four (4) Accused in the present case, with the Applicant being

Accused No. 2.

4. In brief, the prosecution case is that Anil Shinde (Accused No. 3)

demanded Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs) from Santoshkumar

Malve (Informant) for not registering Crime No. 564 of 2026 for offences

punishable under Sections 109(1), 132, 121(1), 127(2), 351, 351(2), 352

and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( “BNS”) against the

Informant, Mahesh Khade and the parents of Mahesh Khade; for helping

them obtain Anticipatory Bail; and not adding offences under the PCPNDT

Act. Accused No. 3 demanded Rs.25,00,000/- for the Deputy

Superintendent of Police-Walke and Rs.5,00,000/- for himself through the

Applicant and Accused No. 1(Aba Sawala Valkunde).

5. On 20th August, 2026, Accused No. 3, accepted Rs.10,00,000/-

for the Deputy Superintendent of Police, through Rupali Fadtare, a Police

Officer and friend of Mahesh Khade and the Accused No. 1, near the

Primary Health Centre near Siddhanath Mandir, Mhaswad. The Accused

insisted on payment of the remaining amount. Therefore, the Informant

approached the ACB, Solapur Office, with the complaint. On 28 th August,

2026, during the raid conducted by the ACB Officers, the Accused No. 1

and the Applicant and were present. The Informant, handed over Rs.

5,50,000/- to the Accused No.1 , who accepted the same with both hands.

Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/6
44-BA-913-2026 (CR).DOC

The Applicant was present alongside Accused No. 1 when the said amount

was handed over.

6. The Applicant was arrested on 29 th August, 2026. Bail

Application No.263 of 2026 filed by the Applicant was rejected by the

Special Judge, ACB, Malshiras (“Trial Court”) on 10th September, 2026.

7. Mr. Kunal V. Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits

that the Applicant has been implicated in the present crime solely based on

his presence alongside Accused No. 1(Aba Sawala Valkunde), who received

Rs.5,50,000/- in the trap laid by the ACB team. He fsubmits that, apart

from the Applicant's presence, there is no other material against the

Applicant.

8. Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.

1 and 2 – State, submits that although there is no telephonic

communication between the Applicant and the Informant, there is

sufficient material on record to indicate the Applicant's involvement in the

crime, based on the conversation between the Applicant and the other co-

accused.

9. Perused the record.

10. The Applicant is not a Public Servant. From the allegations in the

FIR, it appears the Applicant was present when the bribe was paid to

Accused No. 1, apart from the Applicant's presence alongside Accused No.

Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/6
44-BA-913-2026 (CR).DOC

1 at the time of the raid there is no material to indicate the Applicant’s

involvement in the crime.

11. The offences charged against the Applicant herein carry a

maximum punishment of seven years. The sum of Rs.5,50,000/- has been

recovered from Accused No. 1. No recovery has been made from the

Applicant.

12. Accused No. 4 (Rahul Maruti Wagh), a public servant on whose

behalf the demand and illegal gratification were allegedly to be paid, was

granted pre-arrest bail by the Special Judge (ACB), Malshiras, on 22 nd

September, 2026, in Criminal Bail Application No. 270 of 2026. Accused

No. 1 is released on regular bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 926 of

2026. Mr. Kunal V. Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, has tendered a

photostat copy of the order dated 22nd September, 2026, which is taken on

record and marked as “X” for identification.

13. Considering the nature of the allegations against the Applicant,

the fact that the Applicant is a private person and the investigation being

complete, custodial interrogation of the Applicant pending trial in Crime

No. 411 of 2026 is not warranted.

14. In view of the above, this Application is allowed on the following

terms and conditions:

Shantanu S. Dhudum
5/6
44-BA-913-2026 (CR).DOC

ORDER

A) The Applicant - Mahadev Pandhari Mane, shall be

released on bail in Crime No.411 of 2026, registered at

Malshiras Police Station, District Solapur, on furnishing a

P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Only), with one or two sureties in the like amount, to

the satisfaction of the Special Judge, ACB, Malshiras.

B) The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

with the facts of the case to dissuade that person from

disclosing those facts to the Court or to any police

officer. The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence

in any manner.

C) The Applicant shall attend and report to the

Investigating Officer, Malshiras Police Station, District

Solapur, on the second day of each month, till framing of

the charge in Crime No. 411 of 2026.

D) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence in any

manner.

E) The Applicant shall provide the Investigation Officer,

Malshiras Police Station, District Soalpur with his

Shantanu S. Dhudum
6/6
44-BA-913-2026 (CR).DOC

residential address along with proof, his contact

numbers and must inform the Investigating Officer of

any changes to this information from time to time.

F) The Applicant shall regularly appear before the Trial

Court in the proceedings, as and when the proceedings

in Crime No. 411 of 2026 commence.

G) In the event of any default in complying with the

conditions or misuse of the liberty granted to the

Applicants, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek

cancellation of bail.

15. The observations made in this order are for the purpose of

deciding the Bail Application and will not affect the trial.

16. Criminal Bail Application No.913 of 2026 is disposed of.

( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Shantanu S. Dhudum

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…