Pramod Laxman Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3570 OF 2025 Pramod Laxman Jadhav ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w Mr. Shubham L. Shekokare & Irfan Sheikh, for the Applicant.

Ms. S. K. Gajre, APP, for the Respondent-State. A.P.I. Amit Kumbhar, Kondhawa Police Station, Pune City, present.

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED :

24 DECEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.

Heard Mr. Sathe, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Gajre, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State.

2.

This Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.824 of 2025 registered with Kondhawa Police Station, Pune City, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 181, 187, 189(2), 190, 191(1), 3(5), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

Mr. Sathe, learned Counsel points out the Order dated 1st December 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge [Under SC & ST (POA), Act], Pune passed in Criminal Bail Application No.7362 of 2025 by which regular bail has been granted to the co-accusedVishal Madhav Gorle and Yogesh @ Sonu Ramakant Gorle. He points out paragraph No.6 of the said order dated 1st December 2025, wherein the First Informant filed say and submitted that due to misunderstanding, the FIR has been lodged and has given No Objection for release of those Applicants on regular bail. 4.

The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 20th December 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, [Under SC & ST (POA), Act], Pune, in Criminal Bail Application No.8204 of 2025 filed by the Applicant /Accused No.5Pramod Laxman Jadhav, which reads as under: "3] He further contended that, on 21.10.2025 the informant had lodged report alleging therein that on 20.10.2025 in the morning at about 02.00 a.m he woke up as it was Diwali. Thereafter, for the purpose of washroom he went in the open space which is adjacent to his house. He was sitting for washroom. At that time, the coaccused Ganesh came there by possessing Shock Absorber in his hand. The co-accused Ganesh assaulted on his left leg, hands, thigh and head by

said Shock Absorber. Thereafter, the co-accused Vishal Gorole and Sonya Gorole lifted the stone and assaulted on his shoulder. Vijay Kamthe also came there. He assaulted him on his thighs by stick which was possessed by him. They started saying him that he had committed theft and assaulted him. Four to five unknown boys came alongwith Vijay Kamthe and applicant. They also assaulted him. Thereafter, one of the co accused gave phone call to his friend and told that, his stolen vehicle is in front of the house of Balasaheb Shinde and come and take it. The said people damaged the Omini Car which was parked there. After some time, his friend Sugriv came there. He told him that, he had not committed any offence. He from the phone of his friend Sugriv gave phone call to his sister. Thereafter, his family members came there.

They told the applicant and co-accused not to assault him. On which the applicant and co-accused assaulted him by saying that, they Pardhi will commit theft. The applicant and co-accused also threatened them. Thereafter, some one called police. The police came there and gave him the memo for medical examination and sent him to hospital."

5.

It is the submission of Mr. Sathe, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that except assault and abuses hurled at the injured, there is no other role attributed to the Applicant. He submits that the Applicant's role is comparatively less severe than accused Nos.2 and 3 to whom regular bail has been granted. He submits that no allegations are made against the Applicant, as far as the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned. He submits that in any case, the Applicant is not involved in the crime. He submits that there are no antecedents against the Applicant. Therefore, he submits that the pre-arrest bail be granted.

6.

On the other hand, Ms. Gajre, learned APP strongly opposes the Anticipatory Bail Application. She submits that the offence is serious and therefore, Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected. She submits that the Applicant has assaulted the injured and therefore, the Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected. 7.

Perusal of the record shows that the First Informant has filed say in Criminal Bail Application No.7362 of 2025 filed by the accused Nos.2 and 3 and stated that the FIR has been lodged due to misunderstanding. Therefore, material on record shows that no offence is made out under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As far as the Applicant is concerned, co-accused- i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 who are having comparatively more severe role than that of the Applicant, have been granted regular bail.

8.

Accordingly, 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 - Pramod Laxman Jadhav, in connection with C.R. No.824 of 2025 registered with the Kondhawa Police Station, Pune City, he 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 Kondhwa Police Station, Pune, on 1st January 2026 and 2nd January 2026 between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall co-operate 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.

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

9.

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