Rukmini Gopinath Rathod v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3379 OF 2025 Rukmini Gopinath Rathod ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3380 OF 2025 Sunita Ramesh Rathod ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Prasad Kamthe (through Video Conferencing) a/w. Ms. Mitalee Gaikwad and Mr. Ramesh Rathod, for the Applicants. Ms. S. K. Gajre, APP, for the Respondent-State in ABA/3379/2025. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State in ABA/3380/2025.

Mr. Ravindra K. Godse, API, attached to Kharadi Police Station, Pune City, Pune, present.

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED :

9th DECEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.

Heard Mr. Kamthe, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Ms. Gajre, learned APP and Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State. 2.

The Applicant-Rukmini Rathod is accused No.2 and the Applicant-Sunita Ramesh Rathod is accused No.3. These

applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.129 of 2025 registered with Kharadi Police Station, Pune City, Pune, for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

It is the prosecution case that the Applicants have committed theft of electrical wires of value of Rs.7,50,000/-. 4.

It is the submission of Mr. Kamthe, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants that the Applicants are ladies. The Applicant-Rukmini Gopinath Rathod is senior citizen aged 62 years. He submits that the only ground on which the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that in the CCTV footage, the Applicants were found near the spot of the incident. He submits that the said observation is not correct. In any case, he submits that the Applicants are not involved in the crime and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. 5.

Ms. Gajre, learned APP and Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP strongly oppose the Anticipatory Bail Applications. Both of them submit that the Applicants are habitual offenders. As far as the Applicant-Sunita Ramesh Rathod is concerned, there are three

antecedents against her. The said antecedents are of the year 2014, 2016 and 2017. Both of them submit that the CCTV footage shows that the Applicants were present at the spot. 6.

Perusal of the record shows that although it is stated that the Applicants were found at the spot, however, the screenshots of CCTV footage which are produced before this Court shows that these Applicants were on the road. The Applicant-Rukmini Rathod is senior citizen aged 62 years and there are no antecedents against her. As far as the Applicant- Sunita Ramesh Rathod is concerned, the antecedents are of the year 2014, 2016 and 2017. Accordingly, by imposing stringent conditions, the case is made out for grant of Anticipatory Bail. In view thereof, the following order is passed:

O R D E R

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant-Rukmini Gopinath Rathod (Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3379 of 2025) and the Applicant-Sunita Ramesh Rathod (Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3380 of 2025) in connection with C.R. No.129 of 2025 registered with the Kharadi Police Station, Pune City, Pune, the Applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the

sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties each in the like amount.

(b) The Applicants shall attend the Kharadi Police Station, Pune City, Pune on 18th December 2025 and 19th December 2025 between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. and shall co-operate with the investigation. In addition, the Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called.

(c) The Applicants shall furnish their cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

(d) The Applicants 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.

(e) The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any witness in any manner.

(f) The Applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

7.

The Anticipatory Bail Applications are disposed of accordingly.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date:

2025.12.11 16:23:07 +0530 SONALI MILIND PATIL