Vishal Lala Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

{1} drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3434 OF 2025 Vishal Lala Jadhav APPLICANT

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and Another RESPONDENTS .......

Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode a/w Mr. Mohan M. Chavan and Adv Sheetal Ubale, Advocates for the applicant Smt. Veera Shinde, APP for respondent - State Mr. S. D. Hatarote, Advocate for Respondent No.2 .......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 29 th JANUARY, 2026 ORDER :

1.

By this Application, iled under section 483 of the BNSS, the Applicant - Accused seeks bail in Crime No. 318 of 2024 registered with Mhaswad Police Station for ofence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Applicant also challenges order dated 25th July, 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vaduj passed in Criminal M. A. No. 1 of 2025, thereby cancelling the bail granted to the Applicant.

2.

Brief facts of the present matter are that, the informant - second Respondent lodged FIR against the Applicant on 22nd

{2} October, 2024 alleging that on 17th October, 2024, the Applicant, who is serving as line helper on contract basis in MSEDCL (Mahavitaran) Ltd.,Gondawale, demanded bribe of Rs.600/- for transportation and installation of DP. Trap was arranged on 22nd October, 2024 and the Applicant was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.600/-. The Applicant came to be arrested. He preferred Criminal Bail Application No. 272 of 2024, which was allowed by the learned Special Judge, Vaduj, by order dated 5th November, 2024, by imposing following conditions:

"(a) Applicant-accused shall not tamper the prosecution evidence and create pressure upon the prosecution witnesses.

(b) Applicant - accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Oicer."

3.

The informant - second respondent lodged FIR on 9th December, 2024, alleging that on 1st December, 2024, father of the Applicant and the Applicant assaulted the informant and his son Rajesh with axe and iron rod respectively. After registration of the crime, the second Respondent moved an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the Applicant, alleging

{3} that the condition imposed on the Applicant while releasing him on bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 272 of 2024 are violated. The Trial Court accepted the said contention and cancelled the bail granted to the Applicant. Hence, the present Application. 4.

Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant. Perused the record. 5.

Learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant have strenuously opposed the Application stating that the Applicant has violated the conditions of bail and, therefore, the order cancelling bail is justiied. It is submitted that if the Applicant is released on bail, then there will be risk to the life of the second respondent and his family members.

6.

Perusal of the record shows that earlier, on 3rd October, 2023, the Applicant had informed about theft of electricity of Rs.4,31,930/- by the parents of the informant. The said matter was settled before the Lokadalat by MSEDCL, by accepting amount of Rs.14,000/-. Possibility cannot be ruled out that because of the said matter, the Applicant is implicated in the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7.

The Second Respondent has lodged the subsequent FIR on 9th December, 2024 alleging assault on him and his son on 1st

{4} December, 2024. There is no satisfactory explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. Therefore, possibility of false implication of the Applicant, so as to make a ground for cancellation of bail, cannot be ruled Out. The Applicant is arrested on 25th July, 2025 and he is in jail since then. The Applicant is permanent resident of village Palshi, Taluka -Man, District - Satara and he is an employee of MSEDCL and is not likely to abscond if released on bail. Therefore, the Applicant is entitled for bail, on certain conditions.

8.

In the result, the Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25th July, 2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vaduj is hereby quashed and set aside. The Applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 318 of 2024 registered with Mhaswad Police Station for ofence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on executing Personal Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in like amount. The Applicant shall not enter in village Palshi, Taluka - Man, District - Satara till conclusion of the trial. The Applicant shall not tamper prosecution evidence. The Applicant shall not indulge in criminal activity. [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE drp/ba3434-25.doc