Mahesh Maruti Kambale v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3647 OF 2025 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.4776 OF 2024 Mahesh Maruti Kambale .....Applicant In The Matter In Between:

Mahesh Maruti Kambale .....Appellant Vs.

The State Of Maharashtra .....Respondent Mr. Amit Waykool, for the Applicant.

Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

DATED : 10th FEBRUARY 2026 P.C.:- 1.

The Applicant has filed the present Application seeking relaxation of the conditions of bail imposed in connection with Criminal Bail Application No. 4776 of 2024, arising out of C.R. No. 04 of 2023 registered at Ichalkaranji Police Station, District Kolhapur, namely, the conditions restraining the Applicant from entering Kolhapur District and directing the Applicant to attend Karad Police Station, District Satara, on every Sunday.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that 1/3

the Applicant has been regularly attending the police station as directed and that, due to the health problems of his wife, it is necessary for the Applicant to enter Kolhapur city, as she is residing there. On these grounds, it was prayed that the said condition be relaxed.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant has placed on record the order passed by this Court in the case of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, wherein this Court had relaxed the conditions imposed upon them. It appears that merely because the conditions imposed upon Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were relaxed, the present Applicant has approached this Court without placing on record any documentary proof regarding the alleged health problems of his wife. 4.

The learned APP pointed out that the Investigating Officer has specifically stated that, if the conditions are relaxed, there is a possibility of the Applicant threatening the witnesses, as he had earlier threatened them with the registration of a crime under the Atrocities Act.

5.

As the trial has already commenced and witnesses are being 2/3

examined, and considering the reasons stated in the present Application, it is evident that no independent or sufficient grounds have been made out for relaxation of conditions in favour of the Applicant, merely because the conditions imposed upon Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were relaxed.

6.

Hence, the Application is rejected.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) 3/3