Balaji Sayanna Iptekar v. The State Of Maharashtra
2026:BHC-AUG:17739
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 44 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2026 BALAJI SAYANNA IPTEKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kadam Gajanan G. APP for Respondent/s-State : Ms. P. V. Diggikar. ...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 21.04.2026 PER COURT :- 1.
Heard both sides.
2.
The applicant is seeking bail in respect of offence bearing Crime No.196 of 2025, registered with Dharmabad Police Station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3.
Applicant is pressing into service ground of parity as the co-accused Sanjay has already been released on bail vide order dated 10.02.2026 which is placed on record. It is contended that there is no incriminating role played by the applicant. The entire overt act has been committed by accused No.1 Laxman Deokar. Co-accused Potanna has been protected by the interim
order of pre-arrest bail. Applicant is arrested on 06.07.2025. Charge-sheet is filed on 27.09.2025.
4.
It is contended that applicant was neither beneficiary nor had he any administrative control over the business of Shrikrushna Bhusar shop, a trading company.
5.
Per contra, learned APP would vehemently oppose the submissions. It is submitted that applicant had issued a cheques which were dishonoured. He was party to the conspiracy. He is closely related to the main perpetrator. He has also signed as a witness on agreement executed in favour of Digamber Gyanoba. He said to have attracted and harped the agriculturists for selling their agricultural produce to them to the co-accused.
6.
First Information Report does not spell out any specific incriminating role against the applicant. He is alleged to have been associated with co-accused for running the trading business. He was not partner of the business nor the Proprietor. It reveals from the papers of the investigation that main perpetrator is accused No.1 Laxman. There is no material on record to show that applicant is beneficiary or any amount is transferred to his name by the customers or the agriculturists.
7.
The investigation is over and further incarceration is not required. I have gone through the order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 10.02.2026 in Bail Application No.2327 of 2025. I propose to adopt the same reasons and the course. I, therefore, pass following order : Page No.1153 all conditions.
O R D E R
(i) Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) Applicant BALAJI SAYANNA IPTEKAR shall be released on bail in Crime No.196 of 2025, registered with Dharmabad Police Station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, on furnishing P. R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands only) with one or two local solvent sureties of like amount on the following conditions :
(a) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.
(b) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the trial court and shall not leave the area of
jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station till conclusion of the trial.
(c) The applicant shall submit Aadhar Card and PAN Card to the Investigating Officer and detailed address and phone numbers and two of the near relatives.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the applicant, it is open for the prosecution to move this Court seeking cancellation of bail.
(iii) Bail application is disposed of accordingly.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) ...
vmk/-