Amol Jalindar Dhayagude v. State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 613 OF 2026 Amol Jalindar Dhaygude ....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Prasad Kamthe along with Mr. Shubham Dolas and Mr. S. S. Dhaygude, Advocates for Applicant.
Ms. Geeta Mulekar, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. B. Jagdale, Yawat Police Station, present. _________________________________________________________________
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 10th JUNE, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
The applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R.No.74 of 2026 registered with Yavat Police Station,Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 119, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2.
It is prosecution's case that on 19th January 2026, around 6:00 PM, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant on the ground of land dispute, snatched a two-tola gold chain of the first informant, and ran away.
Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date:
2026.06.12 11:08:39 +0530 3.
It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there is SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM a delay of five days in lodging the complaint; the applicant had filed a
complaint against the first informant, and to counter it, the present complaint is filed. The applicant has no antecedents and his custodial interrogation is not required, hence, requested to allow the application. 4.
It is contention of learned APP that the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant on the ground of land dispute and snatched his two-tola gold chain. There are specific allegations against the applicant of snatching of the gold chain. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to recover the gold chain, and requested to reject the application.
5.
I have heard both learned counsel, perused FIR and documents produced on record. It appears from the record that the the applicant lodged a complaint against the first informant. Thereafter, the present complaint was lodged against the the applicant alleging that the two-tola gold chain of the first informant was snatched. The complaint was not immediately lodged and there is a delay of five days in lodging the complaint. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, and I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No.74 of 2026 registered with Yavat Police Station, Pune,
on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.
6.
It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
7.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)