Santosh Chandrakant Katare v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1 928-ABA 3355-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3355 OF 2025 Santosh Chandrakant Katare ... Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

... Respondents ----- Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w B. K. Barve, Sandeep Barve i/by B. K. Barve & Company for the Applicant.

Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent-State. ASI N. M. Bagul, Deolali Camp Police Station, Nashik City is present. ----- CORAM :

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

01ST APRIL 2026 P.C. :

1.

This is an Application for anticipatory bail. 2.

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.131 of 2025 registered with Deolali Camp Police Station, Nashik City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 342(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that the present Applicant and other co-accused defrauded the first informant and witnesses in the present crime to the tune of Rs.19,50,000/- on the pretext of securing them job in the Railways. It is alleged that forged appointment letter bearing government stamp and other government documents were handed over to the first informant and the witnesses.

4.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Learned APP for the Respondent-State.

Mugdha

2 928-ABA 3355-25.doc 5.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation as nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the present Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has drawn my attention to certain documents placed on record to show that the coaccused in the present crime was abducted by the first informant and others. It is submitted that as the present Applicant tried to mediate in the said matter, false FIR is lodged against the present Applicant. It is submitted that the allegations of forgery are against the co-accused Santosh Gaikwad and he has already been released on bail. 6.

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that the Applicant is the main accused. It is submitted that the Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

7.

I have perused the FIR. There are specific allegations against the present Applicant. The Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature and therefore at this stage I am not inclined to accept the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant in respect of false implication. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) Mugdha