All Anticipatory Bail Application

Order - Status 5: : 1 : 9.ABA-1461-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1461 OF 2021 Bharat Bajirao Pawar ….. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Kedar Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 25th JUNE, 2021 [Through Video Conferencing] P.C. : Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant in this application is already arrested and, therefore, this application has become infructuous. Considering this statement, the application is disposed of as having rendered infructuous. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)

Order - Status 4: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1510 OF 2023 … … Ashish Satish Nikam ....Applicant V/S State of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. Satyawrat Joshi i/b Mr. Ashish S. Vernekar for the Applicant. Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for Respondent-State. Mangini Tukaram Malyalkar, ASI, Vita Police Station present in Court. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 23rd MAY 2023. (VACATION COURT) P.C.: At the request of learned Counsel for the Applicant, stand over to 7 th June 2023. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

Order - Status 7: SA Pathan IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1510 OF 2023 Ashish Satish Nikam … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/by Mr. Ashish S. Vernekar, for the Applicant. Mr. Veera Shinde, APP for the State-Respondent. Mr.Dilip Shinde, for Intervener (Original Complainant). CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 7, 2023 P.C.: This is an Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking pre arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.229 of 2023 registered with Vita police station, Sangali for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 327 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution case, one Satish Sambhaji Nikam is the father-in-law of the informant who executed will deed of his property in the name of the wife of the informant and her younger brother. For this reason Applicant took grudge against the informant. On 24th April, 2023, when the informant had taken with him the gold ornaments from his shop, Satish Nikam along with Yash Nikam came there and asked the informant to accompany them to Vita in four wheeler vehicle. At about 3:00 pm when they reached Karve, Satish Nikam stopped his vehicle near the construction site of Dhaba of Applicant. There was discussion amongst them. During discussion, accused No.3 started assaulting informant. The Applicant assaulted informant. The other co-accused caused grievous injury to the informant. The informant, therefore, filed report with the respondent No.1-police station. Apprehending arrest, the Applicant filed Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. which is rejected by the order dated 11th May, 2023. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has filed the present Application. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. Even as per the case of prosecution, the injuries attributed to the Applicant are simple in nature. There are no criminal antecedents. The Applicant is ready to co-operate with investigation and his custodial interrogation is not necessary. Per contra, learned APP and the Advocate for the informant submitted that considering seriousness of offences alleges against the Applicant, and nature of allegations, the custodial interrogation is necessary. It is also necessary to recover missing ornaments as alleged in the report. It is also necessary to investigate about the unknown person referred in the report. Having considered the submissions and the case diary produced by learned APP, it appears that injuries attributed to the Applicant are simple in nature. Prima facie there is dispute between the parties over immovable property. Considering the nature of injuries and the nature of allegations against the Applicant of assault, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required. Hence, following order: a) In the event of arrest of Applicants in connection with C.R. No.229 of 2023 registered with registered with Vita police station, Sangali for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 327 of the Indian Penal Code, the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) along with one or two sureties in the like amount. b) The applicant shall remain present before the concerned police station on 12th, 14th and 16th June, 2023 between 11:00 am to 1:00 pm. c) The Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever is required. d) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. e) The Applicant at the time of execution of bond furnish his address and mobile number to the investigating officer and shall not change the residence without intimation to the investigating officer. The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 559 OF 2018 Jamila Nasir Shaikh ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Vijay Dhananjay Upadhyay For Applicant Adv. A. A. Takalkar APP for State CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 21st March, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 22/03/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 559 OF 2018 Mrs. Jamila Nasir Shaikh .Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr. V. D. Upadhyay, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP, for the Respondent – State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 22.03.2018 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C. R. No. 56 of 2018 registered with the Malvani Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 342, 354(D), 366, 506 r/w 34of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 9, 10 & 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ( for short 'POCSO' ). Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant has not been named in the FIR and that the allegations are essentially as against co-accused – Sohail. He submits that even in the remand report, the Applicant's name has not been disclosed. Learned APP states that the victim has taken the name of the Applicant as being the person who was present at the place where the incident took place. She submits that investigation is still in progress. Learned APP seeks time to take detailed instructions. In the meantime, till the next date, the Applicant is granted interim protection on the following terms & conditions :- O R D E R (i) In the event of arrest, the Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; (ii) The Applicant shall report to the investigating officer of the concerned police station on 2 nd & 3rd April, 2018 between 10:00 a. m. and 12:00 noon. Stand over to 10.04.2018 . To be listed on the Supplementary Board . All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPTORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 559 OF 2018 Jamila Nasir Shaikh Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Vijay Upadhyay for the Applicant Ms. J. S. Lohokare, A.P.P for the Respondent-State API Mr. Ananda Vishnu Bagadi from Malvani Police Station is present CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. TUESDAY, 10th APRIL, 2018 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 56 of 2018 registered with the Malvani Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 342, 354(D), 366, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has not been named in the FIR and that the allegations are essentially as against co-accused-Sohail. He submits that even in the remand report, the applicant's name has not been disclosed. Perused the papers. It appears and it is not disputed by the learned A.P.P that the victim has taken the name of the person, as she was present at the place where the incident took place. Learned A.P.P submits that apart from the same, there are no other allegations qua the applicant. It appears that the applicant has reported to the Investigating Officer pursuant to the interim protection granted to her vide order dated 22nd March, 2018. Considering the role of the applicant, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Hence, the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail on the following terms and conditions : ORDER (i) In the event of the arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount ; (ii) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station as and when called; (iii) The applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case. (iv) The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency; The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, for the purpose of deciding this application. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Ms.Saili Dhuru for Applicant Mr.Nitin B.Patil APP for State/Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 29th April, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant , stand over to 30/04/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: Board Sr.No.:-0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 30th April, 2024 P.C. : Matter did not reach till the court time was over. Hence adjourned. Stand over to 02/05/2024. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: Board Sr.No.:-0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 2nd May, 2024 P.C. : Matter did not reach till the court time was over. Hence adjourned. Stand over to 03/05/2024. on Supplementry Board ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1173 OF 2024 Snehal Somnath Wagh ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent _____ Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil a/w. Rohin. R. Chauhan i/b. Saili Dhuru for Applicants in both ABAs. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP for State/Respondent. _____ CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 3 MAY 2024 P.C. :- Both these applications are decided by this common order as they arise out of the same registered offence. The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.15 of 2024 registered at Khadakwasla Police Station, Pune city, on 26.02.2024, under Sections 302, 498- A and 109 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Nitin Patil, learned APP for the State. The F.I.R. is lodged by one Tarabai Ilag. She has stated that her younger daughter Suvarna was married to Somnath Wagh. The present applicant Ranjana is the first wife of Somnath and the applicant Snehal is their daughter. It is alleged that, Somnath told the informant that he wanted a son and the applicant Suvarna was not able to give him a son and, therefore, he wanted to marry the informant's daughter Suvarna. After marriage, Somnath and Suvarna had one daughter and one son. It is alleged that Suvarna used to tell the informant telephonically that, both these applicants used to instigate Somnath and he used to abuse and beat her. The applicants used to harass her. On one occasion, Somnath assaulted her brutally after disrobing her. In short, Somnath was treating her with cruelty. On 25.02.2024, both of them died i.e. Somnath and Suvarna died in suspicious circumstances. As of today, the prosecution case is that both of them had gone for a walk. Somnath assaulted Suvarna with a stone on her head causing her death and then he committed suicide by hanging himself. Their dead bodies were noticed by others and then police were informed. On this basis the F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that, there is absolutely no material against the present applicants in respect of the main offence of murder and the alleged suicide committed by Somnath. Learned APP submitted that the investigation is in very initial stage. As of today, it is not possible to reach a definite conclusion. He submitted that, more investigation is necessary to find out what exactly had happened. Even postmortem notes are awaited. Learned APP produced the investigation papers before the Court. I have considered these submissions. The statements of children of Suvarna and Somnath are recorded. They have not supported the prosecution case. Apart from that, there are statements of two witnesses who have indicated that Somnath might be suspecting Suvarna's character which had resulted in this incident. Thus, as of today, sufficient doubt is created about the applicants' involvement in the offence. However, the investigating agency needs sufficient opportunity to consider all the aspects of this matter. Therefore, as of today, instead of disposing of these applications, ad-interim relief can be granted to the applicants till the next date with directions to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order. O R D E R i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.15 of 2024 registered at Khadakwasla Police Station, Pune city, till the next date, the Applicants are directed to be released on bail on their executing P. R. bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount. ii) This order shall operate till 28/06/2024. iii) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station from 20/05/2024 to 22/05/2024 between 1.00p.m. to 5.00p.m. and thereafter as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation. iv) Stand over to 28/06/2024. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 13: : 1 : 35-ABA-1173-24+.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1173 OF 2024 Snehal Somnath Wagh …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent ….. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh …..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate i/b. Saili Dhuru for the Applicants. Smt. Sangita D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Nilkanth Rajaram Jagtap, Police Inspector, Warje Malwadi police station, Pune. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 28th JUNE, 2024 P.C. : The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No.15/2024 registered at Khadakwasla police station (which was subsequently investigated by Warje Malwadi Police Station) under Sections 302, 498-A, 109 read with 34 of IPC. On the previous occasion, the Applicants were protected by way of ad-interim order dated 3.5.2024 and both of them were directed to report to the police station. Learned APP, on instructions, states that both the Applicants have reported to the police station and have cooperated with the investigation. Learned APP, on instructions of the I.O., further makes a statement that there is no evidence against the present Applicants and the investigating agency does not want to arrest them in connection with this offence. The statement is recorded. In view of this statement, learned counsel for the Applicants does not press these Applications. Hence, the Applications are disposed of as not pressed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2024.07.03 11:25:34 +0530

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 981 OF 2018 Mrs. Aditi Arun Shinde Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Prakash Wagh for the Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 15th MAY, 2018. P. C. : Learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the application with liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within five days. Allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. The applicant shall not be arrested till 20.05.2018 to enable her to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Application stands disposed of as withdrawn. [V. L. ACHLIYA, J.]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2025 Shrikant Basanna Khanapure …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2025 Zakirhussain Allabaksha Naikwadi Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra Respondent. Mr. Jaydeep Mane for the Applicant. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 21.01.2025. P.C. : The applicants namely (1). Shrikant Khanapure and (2). Zakirhussain Allabaksha Naikwadi were working as Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer with Solapur Municipal Corporation respectively. The allegations against them are that they had unauthorizedly issued about 18 building permits. It appears that the corporation had already conducted departmental enquiry against them and imposed certain punishment. According to the applicants as the applications were made during their tenure, they were asked to issue the building permits in question. Learned APP submits that the applicants be directed to attend the concerned police station to verify their claim. The applicants shall attend the concerned police station from 27.01.2025 to 30.01.2025 between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm and shall cooperate in the investigation. List the applications on 06.02.2025. Till next date, the applicants shall not be arrested. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2025 Shivshankar Balwant Ghate Versus Applicant The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2025 Zakirhussain Allabaksha Naikwadi Versus Applicant The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 132 OF 2025 Anand Vasant Kshirsagar Applicant Versus The State Of Maharashtra Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2025 Shrikant Basanna Khanapure Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent …. Mr. Amol Hunge, Advocate for the Applicant in ABA 274/2025. …. Mr. J.D. Mane, Advocate for the Applicant in ABA 131/2025. Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State. CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 06th February, 2025. P.C. : Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Bench. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (N. R. BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 11: 2025:BHC-AS:7048 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 274/2025 SHIVSHANKAR BALWANT GHATE APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 131/2025 ZAKIRHUSSAIN ALLABAKSHA NAIKWADI ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 132/2025 ANAND VASANT KSHIRSAGAR ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143/2025 SHRIKANT BASANNA KHANAPURE APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT Mr. Kishor Ajetrao a/w. Adv. Amol Hunge (through VC) for the applicant in ABA/274/2025. Mr. Jaydeep Mane for the applicants in ABA – 131/2025, 132/2025, 143/2025. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP for the State in all ABAs. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2025. P.C. : ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 274/2025:- 1. After the matter was argued for some time, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw this application. 2. The application is disposed of as withdrawn. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 131/2025 W ITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 132/2025 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143/2025 :- 3. These applications are filed for seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) No. 627/2024 registered with the Sadar Bazaar Police Station, Solapur City, Solapur, for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 419, 420, 466, 468, 469, 471, 473, 476 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8 and 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. 4. It is the case of the applicants that the only allegation against them is that they have accepted off-line proposals for sanctioning when the Corporation had started the process of accepting only online proposal. It is submitted that either the proposals were before the datum line 1/1/2022 and as there was a G.R. of the Government all proposals could have been even accepted offline. It is submitted 2 that three applicants were compulsorily made to retire by the Corporation. There is a delay in lodging the FIR. Apart from the applicants, there were other employees of the Corporation who were similarly placed like the present applicants viz. Lokhande, Tavagonde and others against whom the Corporation has not taken any action. Even though the three applicants were made to compulsory retire, their retirement benefits have not been entirely paid as of date. The applicant Shrikant Khanapure worked in the Building Proposal Department from 1/1/2015 to 27/6/2022. The applicant Anand Kshirsagar worked in the Department from 2017 up till now. Ghate worked from 1/12/2020 to 27/9/2022. The applicant Zakirhussain Naikwadi worked in the Town Planning Department from 1/12/2020 to 16/5/2022. 5. Ultimately, the Corporation has found them guilty, as regards the irregularities. Without admitting and for the sake of argument, if it is considered to be true even then these are mere irregularities which can be always regularized. The applicants have already been fined by the Corporation for a sum of Rs.1 lakh each, therefore, further punishment is not required. 6. The learned APP on behalf of the State submitted that a total cheating as of now appears to be more than Rs.2,10,00,000/-. The statements have been recorded as of now for 39 proposals. The cheating is likely to be played in many more such proposals. The statements of 16 persons have already been recorded, they are employees of the Corporation and also private engineers who have filed complaint against the present applicants on behalf of the parties who have applied for seeking permission for construction. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application should be rejected as the custody of the present applicants would be required in order to find out how such proposals up till now have been illegally sanctioned by the present applicants. 7. All the three applicants are the employees of the Corporation working in Town Planning/Building Proposal Department of the Corporation and are directly entrusted with the work of sanctioning development permission. Out of four accused persons, three are the engineers working in Town Planning/Building Proposal Department and the applicant Anand Kshirsagar is a clerk working in the Town Planning Department. The three engineers are no more working with the Corporation as there was the Departmental Enquiry against them where they were found guilty and they have voluntarily retired from the Corporation. 4 8. The allegations made by the informant (the Commissioner of the Corporation) is that in around 96 proposals, the present applicants have committed irregularities and have sanctioned the proposals, (a) granting more FSI than permissible limits; (b) Considering the off line proposals, when as per new rules of proposals were to be made online; (c) not informing the Tax Department of the Corporation about sanctioning of the proposals, hence, the Corporation suffered losses. 9. The applicant Ghate and the applicant Shrikant Kharapure were the Junior Engineers who were supposed to be on the field and after inspection to make recommendation for sanctioning the files for development. The applicant Zakirhussain Naikwadi was the Assistant Engineer who used to sign after the Junior Engineer had cleared the file. The applicant Anand Kshirsagar was a clerk who used to purposely with intention to play fraud keep blanks in the register of the Corporation. The applicant Ghate has chosen to withdraw his anticipatory bail application. 10. The learned APP has submitted that the fraud/cheating as of today is amounting to Rs.2,20,00,000/-. The statements of 16 5 witnesses have already been recorded who are the employees of the Corporation and Engineers of various private parties who had applied for sanction of their proposal for development. All of them have pointed fingers towards the present applicants. In the Departmental Enquiry, the applicants have been found guilty and they have been imposed fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The outward register file has been destroyed by the applicants as informed by the staff. The investigating officer has been investigating the matter and up till now they have recorded the statements for 39 proposals and many such proposals according to the learned APP are likely to come forward where fraud has been committed by the present applicants. 11. The Supreme Court in case of Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another 1 in paragraph 12 has held as under :- "……….. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up 1 (2022) 17 SCC 391 against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Therefore, it is not necessary that in every case just because the custody is not necessary, the anticipatory bail application should be allowed. 13. In the present matter, taking into consideration the role played by all the three applicants whereby a grave loss has been incurred by the Corporation as the FSI has been increased by the present applicants, even when they were not holding their posts in the Town Planning/Building Proposal Department proves that they had intention to play fraud on the Corporation. The Corporation has lost a big revenue by the fraud played by all the four applicants. In further enquiry if it is found that there is violation of FSI condition, all the proposals would be rejected which will further cause loss to the parties whose files have been illegally cleared by the applicants. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the present anticipatory bail applications. The same are rejected and disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 860 OF 2023 Rajkumar C. Mhatre …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w. Ms Saili N. Dhuru for the Applicant. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. Ranjeet Patil for the Intervenor. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 23.03.2023. P.C. : The learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the present application. Leave granted. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of as withdrawn. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2014 Shashikant Chandrakant Rane vs. … Applicant The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the State. I.O. Mr. P.D. Kadam, A.S.I., LCB, Ratnagiri present. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 17th June, 2014. P.C. This Application for anticipatory bail is moved directly before this Court. Learned APP, on instructions from the police constable of Ratnagiri Police Station, makes a statement that on the basis of complaint of Mrs. Suhasini Chavan, no offence is registered at Ratnagiri Police Statement. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this Application, as the applicant/accused wants to file an Application before the Sessions Court, Thane. As the offence is registered at C.R. No. I264/2013 with Dombivli Police Station, Thane, the learned counsel is allowed to withdraw this Application for anticipatory bail with liberty to file an Application before Sessions Court, Thane. Hence, the Application for the anticipatory bail is dismissed as withdrawn. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1679 of 2021 Ajit Anil Satkar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent … Mr.Sachin Deokar for the applicant. Smt.A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 27th JULY 2021 P.C:- 1 At the outset, counsel for the applicant seek liberty to implead the complainant as respondent. Liberty as prayed for is granted. Necessary amendment to be carried out within three days. On the amendment being carried out, issue notice to respondent, making it returnable on 13th August 2021. 2 Learned APP is also requested to intimate respondent no.2 about she being impleaded as party respondent in the application and that the next date of hearing of the application being 13th August 2021, through the concerned Investigating Officer. 3 On completing the service, list the application on 13th August 2021. SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1679 OF 2021 Ajit Anil Satkar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents … Mr.Sachin Deokar for the Applicant. Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 13th AUGUST, 2021 ... P.C:- The notice issued to respondent No.2 is awaited. Learned APP is requested to inform the complainant about flinn of proceedinns throunh the concerned Investinatinn Offcer and that the matter is scheduled for further hearinn on 07/09/2021. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1679 OF 2021 Ajit Anil Satkar … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sachin H. Deokar, Advocate for Applicant. Smt.Veera Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Mr.D.B.Desai, PSI, Vadgaon Maval Police Station. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 7th September, 2021. P.C. : After hearing the learned counsel for the Applicant at length, when this Court expressed its disinclination to grant any relief, the learned counsel, on instructions seeks leave to withdraw the present Application with liberty to the Applicant to surrender before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over Vadgaon Maval Police Station, Pune (Rural) on or before 11.00 a.m. of 13th September, 2021. Leave and liberty granted. It is made clear that, the period to surrender will not be extended on any count. Application is disposed off as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 696 OF 2014 Shashikant Chandrakant Rane … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 17th June, 2014. P.C. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the police from Mulund Police Station have arrested the applicant/accused, hence this Application for anticipatory bail has become infructuous and so he wants to withdraw this Application. Hence, the Application for the anticipatory bail is dismissed as withdrawn. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)