Dattatraya Tukaram Mane v. The State Of Maharashtra

Harish

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2331 OF 2025 Dattatraya Tukaram Mane ...Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra

...Respondent

HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI ------- Mr. Priyal Sarda a/w Mr. Onkar Bajaj for the Applicant. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, for the Respondent.

------- by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date:

2025.10.01 17:37:24 +0530 CORAM :

SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE :

30th SEPTEMBER, 2025 P.C.:

1.

Applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 556 of 2025 registered with Foujdar Chawdi Police Station, Dist. Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(4), 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2.

It is prosecution's case that during the period from 13th October, 2023 to 30th June, 2025 the applicant and co-accused on the ground of filing false case of women, extorted the amount Rs. 1,61,000/- from the first informant for withdrawal the case filed by women against him.

3.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The first informant is retired teacher and he does the money lending

business. The applicant and his wife had taken hand loan amount from the first informant and accordingly they had executed bond in favour of the first informant. To recover the said amount, the present FIR is lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the incident happened in the year, 2023 and the FIR is lodged in the year 2025. There is delay in lodging the FIR . Hence, requested to allow the application. 4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant and co-accused extorted the amount of Rs. 1,61,000/- from the first informant by threatening him to involve him in the false case of women. The bank records shows that the first informant had withdrawn the amount from his bank account and given to the applicant and co-accused. Considering the allegations against the applicant, his custodial interrogation is required. Hence, requested to reject the application.

5.

I have heard both the learned counsels, perused the FIR and documents produced on record.

6.

The bond executed by the applicant and his wife in favour of the first informant shows that the first informant had given some amount to the applicant and his wife as hand loan. It supports the applicant's case. Moreover, there is delay in

lodging the FIR. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the application is not required. Hence, I pass the following order.

ORDER

(i) Application is allowed;

(ii) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 556 of 2025 registered with Foujdar Chawdi Police Station, Dist. Solapur, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

7.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

8.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. 9.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.]