Vikas Ingale v. State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2341 OF 2025 Vikas Ingale ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3716 OF 2025 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2341 OF 2025 Amar P. Maji ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
Mr. Chaitanya Mulawkar, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S.A. Karmakar, APP for the State.
Mr. Murtaza Noorani, Advocate (through VC) for Respondent No.2Intervenor.
CORAM:
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED :
11th December 2025 P.C.:
1.
Heard Mr. Mulawkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Mr. Noorani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP appearing for the State.
2.
By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), the Applicant No. 3Vikas Ingale is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.121 of 2025 registered with Faraskhana Police Station, Pune City, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS").
3.
The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.8 of the Order dated 18th August 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No. 4349 of 2025, which reads as under :
"8.
The case of prosecution is that the complainant Amar Pachu Maji is running his business since 30 years for making gold ornaments. He used to make ornaments as per orders of goldsmiths. Accused Vikas Ingale was familiar to him since 20 years. Both of them are running same business, therefore, complainant had trust on him. On 16.07.2024, Vikas Ingale and his son in law Rajaram Raghunath More appeared at the shop of complainant. Vikas Ingale acquainted the complainant with his son in law disclosing that the son in law is running business in named and style as "Pooja Jewelers", at Chikhali, Pune. He told the complainant that the son in law has stock of 3 KG gold with him and
he wanted to make ornaments, therefore, the complainant become ready to make business transaction with him. On the same day, accused Rajaram More and Manoj More gave fine gold of 676 grams 150 ml.grams to the complainant and asked to make ornaments of 1133 grams 330 ml.grams. The fine gold of 406 grams 180 ml.grams was to be given to the complainant after deducting fine gold of 676 grams 150 ml.grams. The accused were ready to give the gold of same weight to him and taken the ornaments but he did not return the said gold to the complainant and thereby committed the breach of trust."
4.
It is the submission of Mr. Mulawkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the only role as per the prosecution case is that the Applicant has introduced other Accused i.e. Accused No.1- Rajaram More and Accused No. 2Manoj More with the First Informant. He submits that there is M.O.U. executed on 22nd October 2024 between the First Informant and Accused No.1 and the Accused No.2 - Manoj More executed said M.O.U. as witness. He submits that the incident in question took place on 16th July 2024. The said M.O.U. was executed on 22nd October 2024 and F.I.R. has been lodged on 23rd June 2025. He therefore submits that the Anticipatory Bail Application be
granted, as the Applicant is not involved in the crime. Learned Counsel submit that there are no other antecedents against the Applicant and the Applicant is senior citizen of 60 years. 5.
On the other hand, Mr. Karmakar, learned APP and Mr. Noorani, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 strongly oppose the Application. Both of them submit that Accused No.3 has actively participated in the crime and therefore the Application be dismissed. Mr. Karmakar, learned APP, on instructions, confirms that the Applicant has no other antecedents.
6.
Mr. Noorani, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2- the Intervenor pointed out certain photographs annexed to the Intervention Application and has submitted that the Applicant is involved in the crime.
7.
Perusal of record shows that admittedly the incident took place on 16th July 2024 and F.I.R. has been lodged on 23rd June 2025 i.e. after the period of about 11 months. In the F.I.R., the First Informant has not stated about the execution of the M.O.U. 8.
As per the prosecution case the only role of the Applicant is that he introduced other Accused i.e. Accused No.1- Rajaram More and Accused No. 2- Manoj More to the First Informant. The
Applicant is senior citizen of 60 years and the Applicant has no antecedents.
9.
Accordingly, the Applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, following Order is passed:
O R D E R
(i) In the event of arrest, the Applicant - Vikas Ingale be released on bail in C.R. No.121 of 2025 registered with Faraskhana Police Station, Pune City, on executing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- and furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called by the Police and shall cooperate with the investigation. (iii) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.
(iv) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.
(v) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant, or any witness, in any manner.
10.
The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
11.
In view of disposal of the Anticipatory Bail Application, nothing survives in the Interim Application, and the same is also disposed of.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)