Parimal Deepakrao Lenghe v. The State Of Maharashtra

by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2025.08.04 19:14:32 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.1527 of 2025 Parimal Deepakrao Lenghe Age: 30 years, Occ: Service, R/a Near Jahagirdar Wadaa, Juni Taksal, Budhwaraa, Amravati, Maharashtra- 44601 ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Bavdhan Police Station in C.R.No.52 of 2025) ... Respondent ---- Mr Shailesh Kharat, for the applicant.

Mr SM Mangaonkar, APP, for the respondent/ State. IO API Tambe, Bavdhan Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, is present.

---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 4 August 2025.

P.C.:

.

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.52 of 2025, registered at Bavdhan Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune for offences punishable under Sections 74, 78, 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

2.

The FIR states that the informant met the applicant during an educational course in 2023, and they became friends. In May 2024, she got married to someone else and moved to Pune with her husband. On 3 January 2025, the applicant allegedly confronted her at her workplace, urging her to leave her husband and forcibly tried to take her with him. He had been repeatedly calling, stalking, and harassing her. On 6 January 2025, he again approached her near her workplace, pulled her hand, and hugged her. When the informant and her husband tried to reason with him, he abused and threatened them.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that there is a substantial and unexplained delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR, which raises serious doubts regarding the genuineness and credibility of the allegations levelled against the applicant. The learned Counsel submits that such an inordinate delay, without any satisfactory justification, is suggestive of afterthought and casts a shadow on the prosecution's version.

4.

The learned Counsel further submits that the applicant and the informant/victim were involved in a consensual romantic relationship. The said relationship was initiated and

persuade by the informant/victim of her own volition and free will, and she maintained regular communication with the applicant. To substantiate this assertion, the learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the applicant and the informant/victim, which according to him, reflect that the informant herself made several affectionate advances and willingly participated in the said relationship. These communications, he argues, are inconsistent with the version of events now alleged in the FIR. 5.

The learned Counsel also submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case with malicious intent and the investigation in the present matter has already been concluded, and there remains nothing to be recovered or discovered at the instance of the applicant. Therefore, no purpose would be served by subjecting the applicant to custodial interrogation.

6.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, fairly submits that the investigation in the present matter has been duly completed and that the charge sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Furthermore, the learned APP, upon instructions received from the investigating officer who is present in Court, candidly states

that the prosecution does not intent to seek custodial remand of the applicant at this stage.

7.

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the investigation in the present matter has already been concluded and the charge sheet has been duly filed before the competent Court. There appears to be no further requirement for recovery or discovery of any material evidence from the applicant. It is also noted that the prosecution has not sought custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage. 8.

Furthermore, preliminary assessment of the materials on record indicates that the relationship between the applicant and the informant was, at least in its initial stages, of a consensual nature.

9.

In view of the aforementioned circumstances, and considering that no custodial interrogation is required, this Court finds it just and proper to allow the present application. Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed on the following terms and conditions :

(i) In the event of applicant's arrest, in connection with CR no.52 of 2025, registered at Bavdhan Police Station,

Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune the applicant shall be released on bail, upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall not contact the victim/respondent No.2, in any manner and shall not influence the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall attend the trial proceedings regularly and cooperate with the trial Court for the expeditious disposal of the case.

10.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. (R.N. Laddha, J.)