Sandesh Sanjay Jundre v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3429 OF 2025 Sandesh Sanjay Jundre ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Sanket Sanjay Mane, for the Applicant.

Ms. S.M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Nikitesh Kotangle (through Video Conferencing) a/w Sachet S. Patil, for the First Informant/ Complainant.

I.O. D. R. Sali, API, attached to Hinjewadi Police Station, present.

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED :

12th DECEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.

Heard Mr. Mane, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel appearing for the First Informant/ Complainant and Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State.

2.

By the present application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS") the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.731 of 2025 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad on

27th September 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS"). 3.

As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the First Informant took place on 14th July 2024 with Applicant No.1Husband. The Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the Applicant No.1. All the Applicants subjected the First Informant to cruelty for fulfillment of unlawful demand of money for construction of house by beating, abusing and by suspecting the character of the First Informant.

4.

It is the submission of Mr. Mane, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the FIR lodged is totally false FIR. He further submits that the marriage between the Applicant and the First Informant took place on 14th July 2024 which is a second marriage of both the Applicant and the First Informant. He submits that as the First Informant treated the Applicant with cruelty and therefore, the Applicant has filed divorce proceeding on 29th August 2025 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune. He submits that immediately after the First Informant came to know about the divorce proceedings filed by the Applicant, false FIR has

been filed on 27th September 2025. He further submits that in any case, the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. parents of the Applicant has been granted Anticipatory Bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the role of the Applicant is almost same and therefore, custodial interrogation is not necessary. He submits that although there are two antecedents, one is of the year 2018 and in another antecedent allegation is that the Applicant has availed credit card facility by taking the same in the name of the watchman of the society wherein the Applicant is residing. He therefore submits that Anticipatory Bail be granted.

5.

On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP and Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel appearing for the First Informant, strongly oppose granting Anticipatory Bail Application. Both of them submitted that as the offence is very serious, the custodial interrogation is necessary. Ms. Yadav, learned APP, submits that there are two antecedents, therefore, Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected. Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel appearing for the First Informant submits that the Applicant is habitual offender as there is FIR registered in the year 2018 under Section 354 of the IPC for

outraging the modesty of a woman, therefore, Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected.

6.

Admittedly, the marriage between the Applicant and the First Informant is the second marriage for both of them. The marriage took place on 14th July 2024 and in less than one year a divorce proceeding has been filed by the Applicant- husband on 29th August 2025. The subject FIR being C.R. No.731 of 2025 has been filed subsequently on 27th September 2025.

7.

Perusal of the record shows that role of the Accused Nos.2 and 3 to whom Anticipatory Bail is granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the role of the present Applicant is almost similar. The main allegations against the present Applicant in the FIR apart from the allegations which are made against other Accused is that Applicant used to assault the First Informant. However, there is no injury certificate. There is one medical document in the investigation papers, however, the same is not clear.

8.

In any case, in the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation is not necessary.

9.

Accordingly, the case is made out for grant of Anticipatory Bail. In view thereof, the following order :

O R D E R

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant -Sandesh Sanjay Jundre in connection with C.R.731 of 2025 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. (b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on 18th December 2025 and 19th December 2025. In addition, the Applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called till filing of the chargesheet and shall cooperate with the investigation.

(c) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and

shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

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

10.

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]