Rajesh Tulsidar Nakhua v. State Of Maharashtra

SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2025.08.26 23:12:40 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2374 of 2025 Rajesh Tulsidas Nakhua, Proprietor, Make India Impex, Aged: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o 605, 6th Floor, B Wing, East Point, 90 Feet Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai - 400075 ... Applicant versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Pantnagar Police Station, Mumbai

2. State of Gujarat Through DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad ... Respondents ---- Mr Priyal Sarda, a/w. Mr Chaitanya Mendon, i/b. Mr Mitesh Jain, for the applicant.

Mr PP Jadhav, APP, for respondent No.1/State. None for respondent No.2.

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

Date: 26 August 2025 P.C.:

.

Not on board. Taken on board.

2.

Heard.

3.

Leave to implead the State of Gujarat as party respondent to this application. Necessary amendment shall be carried out forthwith. The learned Counsel for the applicant tenders a copy of affidavit of service. The same is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.

4.

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.177 of 2025, registered at DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 5.

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.

6.

The learned APP has emphasized that since the FIR is registered at DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat, 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 the relief, it may impose appropriate conditions to prevent misuse of the relief.

7.

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

8.

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:

ORDER

(i) The applicant is granted protection from

coercive action or arrest in the present crime 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 Gujarat, 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 Investigating Agency.

9.

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