Kiran Suresh Salunkhe v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICAITON NO. 2508 OF 2025 Mr. Sujit Shankarlal Vishnoi ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Sushil Mishra, a/w Mr. Arun Dubey, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

15.09.2025.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application for Anticipatory Bail. 2.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 935 of 2025 registered at Malwani, Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 4(a) and 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention Gambling Act, 1867 and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

On 02.08.2025, on the basis of secret information, raid was conducted and co-accused Deepak Gupta was found accepting bets, collecting money for cricket match. During further 1/3

inquiry it was revealed that the co-accused Deepak Gupta was accepting bets at the instance of present applicant. 4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

5.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS Act was issued to the present applicant and the applicant is ready to cooperate in the interrogation.

6.

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondentState submits that, in addition to the present crime, the applicant is involved in one more crime of a similar nature. It is submitted that for the purpose of investigation, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is necessary. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

7.

I have perused the statement of co-accused Deepak 2/3

Gupta and other material collected by the investigating officer during the course of the investigation. The involvement of the applicant is apparent from the said material. The applicant is involved in one more crime of a similar nature. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. The Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.] 3/3