Sandeep Bhalerao v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1539 of 2025 Sandeep Bhalerao Age 42 years, Having his corporate office at Ador Powertron Limited, 51, D II Block, MIDC, Chinchwad, Pune - 411 019.

... Applicant versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Public Prosecutor

2. State of Meghalaya Through Sadar Police Station, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, Shillong.

... Respondents ---- Mr Kunal Katariya a/w Ms Sonali Mehta, Ms Abha Gokhale i/b Desai & Diwanji, for the Applicants.

Mr Yogesh Y Dabke, APP, for Respondent / State. ---- Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date:

2025.06.10 17:01:18 +0530 MAMTA AMAR KALE Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 10 June 2025 P.C.:

.

In this application, the applicant has approached this Court projecting extreme urgency in the matter for the reason that he apprehended arrest in connection with C.R. No.64 of 2025 registered at Sadar Police Station, Khasi Hills East,

Shillong, Meghalaya, for the offences punishable under Sections 305(e), 324(3) and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

2.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is seeking limited relief of protection until he can approach the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid crime registered against him.

3.

The learned APP has emphasized that since the FIR is registered at Sadar Police Station, Khasi Hills East, Shillong, Meghalaya, really speaking, the respondent - State would not have much to say in the matter. He suggests that even if this Court is inclined to grant relief, it may impose appropriate conditions to prevent misuse of the relief.

4.

It is a settled position in law that the limited relief of protection can be granted to the applicant, only to facilitate approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction. In this context, a profitable reference can be made to the decisions in (N. K. Nair and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1985 Cr.L.J. 1887, Shantanu Shivlal Mulak and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 ALL MR Cri. 1380 and Shrikant Gopilal

Rath and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Criminal Writ Petition No.581/2021).

5.

This Court is not going into the merits of the matter or entitlement of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in any manner. Since there is possibility of applicant's arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime, which cannot be said to be misplaced or imaginary, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to protect the applicant for a limited period to enable him to approach the competent Court. Hence, the following order.

(i) The applicant is granted protection from coercive action or arrest only for a period of two weeks from today provided the applicant during this period shall not leave the State of Maharashtra except to travel to the State of Meghalaya for moving such application before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

(ii) The applicant shall inform the concerned police station of State of Maharashtra about this order passed by the Court.

(iii) Needless to say that the applicant shall not act in any manner that would be prejudicial to the investigation that may be carried out by the

concerned police officer in respect of aforesaid FIR. 6.

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