Karan Dilip Bothara S/O Dilip Bothara v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 435 OF 2025 Karan Dilip Bothara S/o Dilip Bothara ...Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 434 OF 2025 Somya Agarwal Bothara W/o Karan Dilip Bothara ...Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

____________________________________ Adv. Aabad Ponda, Senior Counsel a/w Chirag Naik, Vaijayanti S. i/b MZM Legal for the Applicant in ABA/435/2025. Adv Parvez Memon a/w Chirag Naik, Vaijayanti Sharma, Ms. Noopur Mathrawala. i/b MZM Legal LLP for the Applicant in ABA/434/2025.

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Saket Mone & Mr. Devansh Shah i/b. Vidhii Partners, Advocate for Original Complainant.

Adv. Rutuja A. Ambekar, APP for the State in both ABA. API Mr. D. M. Waghmare, EOW Pune.

____________________________________

CORAM

: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATED : 20 FEBRUARY 2025 P.C.:

1.

Mr. Abad Ponda, Senior Advocate on behalf of Applicant No.1 has tendered an affidavit of Applicant (Karan Dilip Bothara), stating that the amount payable by the applicants is Rs.7,47,00,000/-, which will be cleared by 20 June 2026. The affidavit of Applicant No.1 (Karan Bothara) dated 9 February 2025, is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. 2.

Mr. Abad Ponda, Senior Advocate, further submits that the amount acknowledged as payable, as per the schedule stated in the affidavit, is without admitting any outstanding liability or the guilt of the Applicant in this case. The said payment is being made solely to bring an end to the dispute arising from the crime in question. For ease of reference, the affidavit is scanned and reproduced below:

3.

The statements made in the affidavit are accepted as statements made to this Court.

4.

Mr. Gupte, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant submits that the outstanding amount as mentioned in the Affidavit of the Applicant and the proposed payment timeline are not acceptable to the Complainant.

5.

The learned APP on the last occasion, had raised the issue of the present Anticipatory Bail Application not maintainable, since the Applicant has approached this Court without first approaching the Sessions Court. The parties to day have agreed that the Applicant will withdraw the present Anticipatory Bail Application and approach the Sessions Court by filing Anticipatory Bail Application. Accordingly, the Applicants are directed to approach the Sessions Court and since the Sessions Court handling the assignment of Anticipatory Bail Applications is not available, the in-charge Court (POCSO Court), will hear the Anticipatory Bail Applications proposed to be filed by the applicants, as early as possible.

6.

In the meantime, since the Applicant have shown their bonafide by expressing their willingness to deposit amount as per the schedule mentioned in the affidavit, no coercive steps will be taken against

Applicants for a period of one week.

7.

If the said application proposed to be filed by the Applicants is not decided within a period of one week, the Applicants can make a request to the concerned Court for extension of interim relief if the needs arises. 8.

Accordingly, the present Anticipatory Bail Applications are disposed of.

9.

All contentions of the parties are kept open. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)