Bhushanpratap Mukundmurari Singh v. State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2580 OF 2025 Bhushanpratap Mukundmurari Singh ...Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent.
..............
Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani, Adv. Shahabuddin Shaikh, Adv. Mayanka S.R i/b Mr. Khan Abdul Wahab for the Applicant.
Mr. V.N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent/State. PI Vilas Shelke (IO), PSI Sunil Sonawane (Pairavi), Charkop police station present.
..............
CORAM
:
N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE :
13.11.2025.
P.C. :
1.
This is an application for Anticipatory Bail. 2.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 191 of 2025 registered at Charkop Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 140(3), 351(2), 352, 308(5), & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 32 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.
3.
It is the case of the prosecution that the first informant was in need of financial assistance for his business. As such, his friend introduced him to the co-accused Sujit Singh. On 23.12.2023, the first informant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from Sujit Singh with a 20% 1/3
interest thereon. It is alleged that upon failure of the first informant to pay the interest amount on 14th September 2024 the present applicant and other co-accused abducted the first informant and threatened to kill him. Accordingly, the first informant paid them Rs.40,000/- after which he was released. Subsequently, the applicant and other co-accused persistently demanded more money from the first informant and threatened him with dire consequences.
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 alleged financial transaction was with the co-accused Sujit Singh. It is further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the first information report. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary as nothing is to be recovered at his instance. 6.
On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-State submits that the first informant was abducted by the present applicant and other co-accused. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in 10 more crimes. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.
2/3
7.
I have perused the first information report. There is a delay of about one year in lodging the FIR. This Court by order dated 1.10.2025 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2697 of 2025 granted anticipatory bail to the main accused. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail on certain conditions. In the result, the following order is passed :
O R D E R
a) The Application is allowed.
b) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 191 of 2025 registered at Charkop Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 140(3), 351(2), 352, 308(5), & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 32 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. c) The applicant shall not enter into the corporation limits of Mumbai City till conclusion of trial, except to attend the dates before the trial court.
[N.R. BORKAR, J.] 3/3