Bombay High Court
KARTIK JANAKI DIGARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court allowed the interim application, permitting release on a Rs.50,000 P.R. bond and directing the applicant to furnish the required surety within four weeks, with default leading to bail cancellation.
Summary
The applicant, Kartik Janaki Digar, was granted regular bail on 17 July 2026 in connection with Crime No.386 of 2024 under Sections 109, 3(5) and 238(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to furnishing two sureties, one from the State of Maharashtra, and other conditions. While in custody, the applicant faced difficulty in arranging the required surety and filed Interim Application No. 599 of 2026 seeking release on a personal surety (P.R.) bond of Rs.50,000 and an undertaking to provide the statutory surety within four weeks of release. The State opposed the application but did not contest the proposed modification. The Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, allowed the interim application, permitting release on the P.R. bond and ordering the applicant to furnish the statutory surety within the stipulated period, with failure to do so constituting a breach liable to bail cancellation. The order of 17 July 2026 was modified only to the extent of the interim relief, and the rest of the bail order remained unchanged. The application was subsequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the court may permit release on a personal surety bond pending furnishing of the statutory surety
- Whether the bail order can be modified to allow a four‑week period for furnishing the required surety
- Consequences of non‑compliance with the modified bail conditions
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 238(B), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- surety
- P.R. bond
- interim application
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- release from custody
- bail modification
Judgment
915 - CRI IA - 599 - 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VAIBHAV
RAMESH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
JADHAV
Date: 2026.09.23
18:13:08 +0530
CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 599 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 347 OF 2026
Kartik Janaki Digar … Applicant
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
-------
Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale (through V.C.) with Ketan Patil for
the Applicant.
Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for the State.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, and Mr. Avinash A. Naik, learned APP for the Respondent -
State.
2. By this Application, the Applicant has sought the following
substantive reliefs in prayer clauses 11(a) and 11(b), as set out
verbatim:
“(a) Pending the surety this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the
Applicant to be released on execution of P. R. Bond of Rs.50,000/-.
(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the Applicant to furnish
the requisite sureties within a period of four weeks from date of his release.”
VRJ 1
915 - CRI IA - 599 - 2026.doc
3. Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
states that the Applicant was granted Regular Bail by order dated 17 th
July 2026 passed by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 347 of
2026, subject to the following conditions:
“i. The application is allowed.
ii. The Applicant - Kartik Janaki Digar, in connection with Crime
No.386 of 2024 registered with Ratnagiri Police Station,
District: Ratnagiri, for the offence punishable under Sections
109, 3(5) and 238(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
the Applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) with
two solvent sureties in the like amount , on the following
conditions:
A) The Applicant shall submit one surety from the State of
Maharashtra.
B) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station on
every 1st date of month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., till
completion of trial.
C) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
and shall not influence the witnesses.
D) The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card
copy to the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses of the
residence and phone numbers of himself and two of the near
relatives.
E) Failure on the part of the Applicant to comply with the
conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of
bail.”
4. Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
refers to paragraph No. 4 of this Interim Application to submit that the
Applicant, being in custody, is facing difficulties in arranging a local
VRJ 2
915 - CRI IA - 599 - 2026.doc
surety and therefore, she requests the indulgence to permit the
Applicant to be released on bail by execution of a PR bond, with an
undertaking to this Court that the Applicant shall furnish the surety in
terms of clause No. 6(ii)(A) of the order dated 17 th July 2026 within a
period of four (4) weeks from the date of his release.
5. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, learned APP for the State, submits that as
the Applicant has expressed his difficulties in paragraph No. 4 of this
Application and Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, on instructions and on behalf of the Applicant, has given an
undertaking that the regular surety as ordered by this Court in its order
dated 17th July 2026 would be furnished within four(4) weeks of the
Applicant’s release from jail, the Respondent -State does not oppose this
Application.
6. By taking the statements made by Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale,
learned Advocate for the Applicant, that the Applicant shall furnish a PR
bond of Rs. 50,000/- and within four (4) weeks from the date of his
release, comply with the bail condition in clause No. 6(ii)(A) of the
order dated 17th July 2026, as an undertaking to the Court, this
Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
Consequently, the Applicant is permitted to furnish a PR bond of Rs.
50,000/- at the time of his release and to furnish the sureties in terms of
clause No. 6(ii)(A) of the order dated 17th July 2026 within four (4)
VRJ 3
915 - CRI IA - 599 - 2026.doc
weeks of the Applicant’s release.
7. It is clarified that in the event the Applicant fails to furnish the
sureties in terms of clause No. 6(ii)(A) of the order dated 17 th July 2026
within four (4) weeks of the Applicant’s release, the same shall be
treated as a violation of the bail condition. Respondent-State, in such
circumstances, may apply for cancellation of bail if the Applicant
defaults in complying with the undertakings
8. The order dated 17th July 2026 stands modified to the aforesaid
extent only. The rest of the order dated 17 th July 2026 shall remain as it
is.
9. Ms. Bhagyashri R. Mangale, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
states that this order shall be communicated to the Applicant on or
before 28th September 2026.
10. Interim Application No. 599 of 2026 is disposed of.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
VRJ 4
Checking your session…