Mona @ Manubai W/O Harish Chikhalonde v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Tahsil And Dist. Nagpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 3 OF 2026 (Mona @ Monubai w/o harish Chikhalonde Vs. The State, thr PSO, PS Tahsil, Tq. Dist. Nagpur) ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. Aniket N. Rangari, Advocate for applicant. Mr C.A. Lokhande, APP for respondent /State.

CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J.

DATE : 20.01.2026.

Heard.

2.

The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 860/2025, registered with Police Station Tahsil, District Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2) read with Section 3(5) and 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

The contention of the applicant is that she is not indulged in the crime of extortion. There is nothing on record to suggest that any amount was received by her from the complainant. According to her, she has assisted the complainant. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Hence, she prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4.

Learned APP has opposed the application on the ground that the incident occurred in the house of the present applicant and therefore, her involvement in the offence cannot be ruled out. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the application.

5.

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, learned APP and having gone through the case diary, it is revealed that the complainant had been to the house of the applicant where one Shubhangi was present. When the applicant went inside the room, Shubhangi came there, she removed her clothes as well as the clothes of the applicant and then three persons came inside the room and snapped photographs of the complainant and started demanding money for not making the photographs viral on the internet. The complainant paid Rs. 1 lakh to co-accused Ramtekekar. Thereafter, co-accused Ramtekekar used to blackmail the applicant and extorted money from him from time to time to the tune of Rs. 1,78,000/- in total. Hence, the complainant approached the police station and lodged the present complaint.

6.

Prima facie, it appears that none of the amount has gone to the share of the present applicant; rather, nowhere in the FIR has it been stated that the applicant was also involved in extorting money. Since, no amount has been received by the present applicant, custodial interrogation may not be required. So far as the earlier offences registered in the name of the applicant are concerned, the same are not for extortion of money and the applicant has been acquitted in the said offences. 7.

Considering the nature of allegations and the role played by the applicant, a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order:

i) The application is allowed.

ii) In the event of arrest, the applicant be released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Saturday for three weeks.

iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall cooperate in the investigation. JUDGE Belkhede