Bombay High Court
KUNAL BIRWADKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The bail granted to Respondent No.2 remains valid and the petition for its cancellation is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Kunal Birwadkar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the bail granted on 1 February 2018 to Respondent No.2 in a case under IPC sections 506(2) and 506(4). He alleged that he had been threatened, relying on complaints dated 3 July 2017 and 11 December 2020, and sought cancellation of the bail. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had earlier rejected the petition for cancellation, holding that supervening circumstances and reliable evidence of threat were lacking, and the subsequent appeal against that order was dismissed as non‑maintainable. The High Court examined the record, found no cogent evidence of threat and no indication that the accused had misused the liberty for six years, and therefore concluded that the petition lacked substance. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the bail order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail granted to Respondent No.2 should be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was threatened.
- Whether the application for cancellation of bail is maintainable in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence of threat.
- Whether the dismissal of the criminal appeal challenging the bail order was legally valid.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 506(2), 506(4)
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- threat to complainant
- criminal appeal
- writ petition
- Articles 226
- Articles 227
- IPC 506
- High Court
Judgment
51-WP-4037-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4037 OF 2025
Kunal Birwadkar …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Kunal Birwadkar, the Petitioner present in-person (through
Video Conferencing).
Mrs. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 28th SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Birwadkar, the Petitioner, who appears in-person
through Video Conferencing and Mrs. Yadav, learned APP
appearing for the Respondent-State.
2. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
the order dated 1st February 2018 granting bail to the Respondent
No.2 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, order
dated 22nd December 2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Mumbai, rejecting the
Page 1
Sonali
51-WP-4037-2025.DOC
application for cancellation of the bail and the order dated 24 th
April 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, C.R.
No.88, Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai, rejecting
Criminal Appeal No.462 of 2024 challenging the said order dated
22nd December 2023.
3. Perusal of the record shows that the said C.R. No.208 of
2017 has been filed on 7th June 2017 under Sections 506(4) and
506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). In the said case, by
order dated 1st February 2018, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kurla has granted bail to the Applicant. Thereafter, the
Application bearing Exhibit-15 was filed by the Petitioner i.e. First
Informant/Complainant for cancellation of bail granted by said
order dated 1st February 2018 to the Respondent No.2. By order
dated 22nd December 2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, while rejecting the said Application, it
has been observed that there ought to be supervening
circumstances for cancellation of bail. Only on the allegation that
the original Complainant has been threatened, without cogent and
reliable evidence, personal liberty of the accused cannot be
curtailed. The said order has been challenged by the Petitioner in-
Page 2
Sonali
51-WP-4037-2025.DOC
person by filing Criminal Appeal No.462 of 2024 before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Mazgaon,
Mumbai and the said Appeal has been dismissed mainly on the
ground that the same is not maintainable.
4. It is the submission made by the Petitioner in-person that the
Petitioner has been threatened. To substantiate the contention that
the Petitioner has been threatened, the Petitioner who has
appeared in-person (through Video Conferencing) relied on the
complaint dated 3rd July 2017 which he has filed to the higher
authorities of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay annexed
at Exhibit-F (pages 123 to 127 of the Writ Petition) and the
complaint dated 11th December 2020 annexed at pages 129 to 131.
However, the said complaints are dated 3rd July 2017 and 11th
December 2020. Thus, the observations of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Mumbai that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to
show that the Petitioner has been threatened and therefore, liberty
granted to the Respondent No.2 cannot be curtailed, is a possible
view.
Page 3
Sonali
51-WP-4037-2025.DOC
5. In any case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the
Respondent No.2 has misused the liberty for last six years.
6. Accordingly, there is no substance in the prayer of the
Petitioner to cancel the bail, which has been granted to the
Respondent No.2 by order dated 1st February 2018.
7. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.09.28
18:25:00
+0530
Page 4
Sonali
Checking your session…