Harshwardhan @ Harshal Choudhari vs State Of Maharashtra
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-AS:24429
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2026
Harshwardhan @ Harshal Choudhari
Aged 37 years,
R/at Vishwajeet Apartment, Flat No.10,
Busari Colony, Kothrud, Pune.
…Applicant
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
(Through Kothrud Police Station, Pune)
2. Sourab Shivkumar Suman
Age – 38 years, Occ. Service
R/at. C 1202, ITEO, Homes, Hinjewadi, Pune
…Respondents
Mr. S. M. M. Owais T. Jahagirdar a/w. Mr. Vahid Shaikh and Mr.
Ibrahim I. Sayyed, for the Applicant.
Ms. Kranti T. Hirvale, APP, for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam a/w. Mr. Prasad Avhad, for Respondent
No.2.
Mr. Mohan Chavan, PSI, Kothrud Police Station, Pune City, Pune,
present in Court.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
th
DATED : 16 JUNE 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant, Ms. Hirvale, learned APP appearing for Respondent
No.1-State and Mr. Nikam, learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2.
Page 1
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
2. By the present Criminal Application filed under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
“BNSS”), the Applicant is challenging the legality and validity of
th
the order dated 29 January 2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Bail Application No.5697 of
2025, whereby the bail granted to the Applicant vide order dated
th
19 August 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (for
short “JMFC”) in C.R. No.184 of 2025 was cancelled.
3. This matter was listed yesterday. When the matter was called
out yesterday immediately learned APP stated that the Applicant is
absconding. The learned APP pointed out earlier orders where no
th
stay has been granted and particularly, order dated 18 April 2026
passed by a learned Single Judge wherein police were granted
liberty to take appropriate steps to secure Applicant’s arrest.
However, the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant
submitted that the Applicant is not absconding and the Applicant
be heard on merits. He submitted that the Applicant will remain
present in this Court if protection is granted. Although the said
request is opposed by the learned APP and the learned Counsel of
Page 2
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
Respondent No.2, to give fair opportunity to the Applicant, this
th
Court passed the following order on 15 June 2026:
th
“1. Stand over to 16 June 2026.
2.The Applicant shall remain present in the Court
tomorrow.
3.Till the next date, no coercive steps be taken
against the Applicant.
4.This order is passed without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the Applicant as well as
the Respondents, and more particularly, in view of
the earlier orders passed by this Court.”
th
As noted hereinabove, by the earlier order dated 18 April
4.
2026, the police were directed to take appropriate steps to secure
the arrest of the Applicant and as the learned Advocate appearing
for the Applicant submitted that the Criminal Application be heard
on merits and that the Applicant would remain present in this
th
Court, if limited protection is granted. The above order dated 15
June 2026 was passed in view of said submissions. However, today
when the matter is called out, learned Advocate appearing for the
Applicant submitted that the Applicant has already filed
proceeding in the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case.
Thus, indicating that now this Court should not hear this matter till
the Supreme Court decides the said Transfer Petition. When it was
Page 3
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
pointed out to the learned Advocate of the Applicant that this was
not informed to this Court yesterday and as this Court has granted
limited protection to the Applicant, now this is informed to the
Court and therefore, it was misrepresented to this Court that today
the matter would be argued on merits and when this Court asked
the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant to produce copy
of the Transfer Petition, learned Advocate appearing for the
Applicant submits that the said Supreme Court proceeding is
concerning some other matter and that he will make submissions.
5. Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant
has raised the following contentions:
i. He submitted that the main ground on which the bail has
been cancelled is that the learned Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to grant bail as Section 111(3) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS, 2023”) has been
invoked.
ii. He submitted that inspite of addition of Section 111(3), the
learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to grant bail. To
Page 4
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
substantiate the said contention, he relied on the following
decisions:
1
1. Mr. Sanjay Narhar Malshe vs. State of Maharashtra
2
2. Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr.
3
3. Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere vs. State of Maharashtra
iii. He submitted that before the learned Magistrate granted
bail, the Applicant was in custody for 60 days and therefore,
it is not necessary to cancel the bail.
iv. He further submitted that the Applicant is not involved in
the crime and therefore, also the Applicant is entitled for
bail.
v. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge while
setting aside the order of the learned JMFC granting bail,
has not taken into consideration the merits and therefore,
the impugned order is perverse.
1 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 375:2005 Cri LJ 2984
(2004) 4 SCC 280
2
3 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1968: 2011 Cri LJ 515: (2010) 5 AIR Bom R 536
Page 5
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
6. On the other hand, Mr. Nikam, learned Counsel appearing
for Respondent No.2 raised the following contentions:
i. He submitted that the offence is very serious and on merits
the Applicant is not entitled for release on bail.
ii. He submitted that the learned Magistrate although was
aware that Section 111(3) of the BNS, 2023 has been added,
still without making reference to the same, passed the order
granting bail.
iii. He submits that even assuming that the Magistrate has got
power to grant bail, still the criteria which is set out in the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Singh
Bhati (supra) has not been considered. He also relied on the
decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Ishan
Vasant Deshmukh alias Prasad Vasant Kulkarni vs. State of
4
Maharashtra .
iv. He submitted that there are about 7 cases registered against
the Applicant and therefore, the Applicant is habitual
4 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1593
Page 6
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
criminal and therefore, Section 111(3) of the BNS, 2023 is
rightly invoked.
v. He submitted that the order granting bail passed by the
learned JMFC is perverse order without taking into
consideration the merits of the case. He further submitted
th
that in the impugned order dated 29 January 2026 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by which
the bail granted to the Applicant is cancelled, the learned
Sessions Judge has specifically observed that the learned
Magistrate granted bail to the Applicant without jurisdiction,
the order granting bail suffers from non-application of mind
and the learned Magistrate is totally silent about the
addition of Section 111(3) of the BNS, 2023.
vi. He submitted that although the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has not discussed factual aspects in detail, however,
the same are considered and learned Sessions Judge has
held that considering the gravity of the offence, nature and
seriousness of the offence, the bail granted to the accused
Page 7
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
needs to be set aside. He submitted that the said
observations are applicable to the factual aspects.
th
vii.He further submitted that this Court by order dated 15
September 2025 rejected Anticipatory Bail Application
No.2512 of 2025 filed by the co-accused namely Ajinkya
Arun Aghade (accused No.2).
The learned APP submitted that apart from the 7 offences
7.
which are set out on page 349 of this Application there is one more
offence registered against the Applicant with Samarth Police
Station, Pune bearing C.R. No.255 of 2025 under Sections 318(4),
308(2) and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023. She submits that including
the present FIR, there are total 9 FIRs registered against the
present Applicant.
8. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set
out the FIR filed by Respondent No.2 which reads as under:
" , 38
मी सौरभअशोककुमारसुमनवय वर्षे व्यवसाय
नोकरीरा . सी 1202, आय Vs ª M होम्सहिहंजवडीफेज 2
. . . . . 9284637758
ता मुळशीहिज पुणे मो नं
Page 8
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
समक्षपोलीसठाणेतहजरराहुनहिलहुनदेतोजवाब
,
की मीवरीलपत्यावरकायमचणेराहणेसअसुनमाझे
. ojhy jkgr
घरीमीमाझे कुंटुबासहराहणेसआहे
rhu , eh
असलेलेठि काणीमाझेएकुन फ्लॅटआहेत एका
माझीपत्नीसौ . तुलीका , एकमुलगाशौय, एकमुलगी
,d= . ¶y WV
समायाराअसे राहतो बाकी दोन मी
.
भाड्याने ठिदलेले आहेत मी आमचे हिबहि-डंगचा
चेअरमन आहे . भी राहत असले-या हिठकाणी ई
1101 jes’k
हिबहि-डंगमधीलफ्लॅटनंई मध्ये अहीरेहा
. 30/06/2025
त्यांचेकुंटुबासहराहणेसआहे हिदनांक
रोजीमीहिसंगापुरयेथेमाझेकामाहिनहिमत्तगेलोहोता
त्याहिदवशीमाझामुलगाशौय, सांयकाळीसोसायटी
मध्येखेळतअसतानामाझ्यामुलाचेअंगावरतीनते
=h
चारभटकीकु आलीव्यावेळीमाझ्यामुलगाखाली
पडलात्यावेळीमाझीपत्नीवसोसायटीमधीलइतर
लोकांनीत्याकुत्र्यांनामाझ्यामुलापासुनदुरकेले
त्यावेळीमाझेमुलासहिकरकोळदुखापतझालीहोती
हीसव, बाबमाझ्यापत्नीनेमलाहिसगांपुरयेथेफोन
.
करुनसांगीतलेहोते त्यावेळीमीहिबहि-डचेहिसक्युटी
=h
गाड, यांनाभटकीकु हटवणेससांगीतलेअसताकाही
वेळानंतरहिसक्युहिटीगाड, यांनीसोसायटीचेग्रुपवर
नेसेजटाकलाकीरमेशआहीरेवत्यांचीपत्नीहिहने
पटक्याकुत्र्यांनाहाकलनेसाठीहिसक्यूटीगाड, यांना
xzqi
मनाईकेलीत्यामुळेमीसोसायटीचेव्हास्टअप वर
=h
रमेशआहीरेयांनाभटक्याकु हकलुननदेनेबाबत
हिवचारणाकेलीहोतीवत्यानंतरआनचेव्हास्टअपवर
यादहिववादझालेव त्यांचठिदवशीमध्यरात्रीमलाएक
9762353636
अनोळखीमोबाईनंबर यावरुन
हर्षवर्धनचौर्धरीयांचाफोनआलात्यावेळीमला
,
सांगीतलेकी तुमचेआणीरमेशअहीरेवत्यांचीपत्नी
यांचेबरोबरकाय rdzkj झालीआहेतसेचत्यांनेमला
ठिशवीगाळदेणेतसुरवातकेलीवमाझ्यापत्नींबद्दल
अपमानजनकशब्दवापरलेत्यामुळेमाझेवहर्षवर्धन
चौर्धरीयांचेफोनवरवादझाले . त्यानंतरमलाठिदनांक
1/7/2025
रोजीमलासमजलेकीमाझेठिवरोर्धात
रमेशआहीरे यांनी ठिहंजवडी पोलीस स्टेशनयेथे
. . . 79/2025 . . lafgrk 352,351
गु रं न भा न्या
(2),356 (2).
सहअनुसुठिचतजातीवजमाती
अत्याचार izfrca/k कायदा 1989 सुर्धारणा 2015 चे
कलम 3 (1) ( आर ), 3 (1) ( एस ) सहमाहीती
ra=Kku 67 .
कायदा अन्वयेगुन्हादाखलझालेलाआहे
Page 9
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
05/07/2025 12.00 .
ठिदनाक रोजीदुपारी वा
.
हर्षवर्धनचौर्धरीयांनीमाझीपत्नीसौ तुलीकाठिहचे
8178557032
मोबाईननं याफोनकरूनमला
तुमच्यापती*शीबोलायचेआहेअसेसांगीतलेत्यांनतर
हर्षवर्धनचौर्धरीयांनीमलाबावर्धनयेथीलइराणी
कॅफे येथेभेटणेसबोलावलेतेथेआमचीभेटझाली
त्यांनीमलामाझेवरदाखलगुन्हयाबाबतसांगीतलेव
सदरगुन्हयांमध्येमलापंर्धरावर्षा*चीठिशक्षहोईल
अशीठिभतीदाखवलीवरमेशआहीरेवत्यांचीपत्नी
1
यांचेशीमाझेचांगलेसंबंर्धआहेततुजरमला कोटी
रूपयेठिदलेतरतुझ्यावरदाखलगुन्हामागेघेतायेईल
परंतुजरतुपैसेठिदलेनाहीतरपंर्धरावर्ष= ठिशक्षा
भोगणेसतयाररहात्यावेळीहर्षवर्धनचौर्धरीयांचे
बोलण्यानेमाझ्यामनातठिमत्तीठिनमा*णझालीत्यावेळी
मीत्यांनाठिवनतीकेलीकीमीएवढेपैसेदेऊशकत
नाहीत्यावेळीहर्षवर्धनचौर्धरीयांनेसांगीतलेकी
सोसायटीमध्येतुझेतीनफ्लॅटआहेतजरआता
तुम्हीमलापाचलाखरुपयेठिदलेतरपुढचेबोलनेमी
. .
चालु ेवेनत्यावेळीमीघाबरुनत्यांनाए टी एम
मर्धुनजावुनमाझेवमाझेपत्नीचेअकांऊटवरुन
1,50,000/- ( iUukl
एकलाख हजाररुपयेकाढले
तेथुनआम्हीचांदणीचौकातचालतचालतबोलत
आलोतेथेत्यानेमाझेकडुनते 1,50,000/- रुपये
06/07/2025
घेतलेत्यांनतरपरतठिदनांक रोजी
त्यांनीमलादुगा* कॅफे भुसारीकॉलनीयेथेबोलावून
. . .
घेतलेवकोथरुडयेथीलएच डी एफ सीबैंकचे
. . . 40,000/-
ए टी एम वरून रुपयेवमाझ्याठिखशात
असलेले कैश 10,000/- रुपये जबरदस्तीने माझे
कडूनकाढुनघेतलेअसेठिमळुनहर्षवर्धनचौर्धरीयांने
2,00000/- ( )
माझ्याकडून दोनलाखफक्त रुपये
. 12/07/2025
घेतले त्यानंतर ठिदनांक रोजी
हर्षवर्धनचौर्धरीयांनेमलाभेटणेसबोलावलेत्यावेळी
त्यांचेसोबतअठिजक्यअर्धाडेहेहोतेत्यांनेअठिजंक्य
अचाडेयांचीओळखसायबरवफॉठिरनठिसकएक्सपट*
अशीओळखकरूनठिदलीत्यावेळीहर्षवर्धनचौर्धरी
yk[k
यांनेमाझ्याकडुनपठिस्तस रुपयाचीमागणीकेलीं
करुनतेचारठिदवसातदेणेससांगीतलेथेपारसदर
रक्कमवेळेतठिदलीनाहीतरआम्हीपोलीसांनासांगुन
तुम्हालाअटककरुनजेलमध्येजमाकरावयाससांगु
अशी ठिमती दाखवली तसेच तुम्ही पक्कम ठिदली
. . .
नाहीतरस्नेहाआहीरेहेतुमच्यावरभा द सं कलम
376,354,4 504 izek.ks
गुन्हा करणेचे तयारी
Page 10
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
nk
आहेतअसेसांगुन मलाहिभती खवलीवहर्षे,वध,न
चौधरीवअहिजक्यअधाडेयांनीपस्तीसलाखापैकी
पंचहिवसलाखआगोदरदयावेलागतीलवउव,रीत
रक्कममुढच्यादोनहिदवसांतदेणेससांगीतलेत्यावेळी
मी माझ्याकडे एवढे पैसे लगेच नाहीत असे
vftaD;
सांगीतलेवरहर्षे,वध,नचौधरीव अधाडेयांनी
सांगीतलेकी दहालाखरुपयेआतालगेचदेवउव*रीत
मंर्धरालाखरुपयेसातठिदवसानंतरदेणेससांगीतले
R;kosGh
मीत्यांनामांझीएवढेपैसेदेणेचीऐपतनाही
असेसांगीतलेत्यावेळीठिवनवणीकरुनतेदोघेजन
वीसलाखरुपयाकमांडवलीकरणेसतयारझालेव
त्यावेळेचहर्षवर्धनचौर्धरीयांनीअठिजंक्यअर्धाडेयांना
पंच्याऐशीहजाररुपयेवेगळेदयावेलागतीलअसे
21,00000/- (
फुलआणीफायनलरक्कम एकठिक्स
लांख ) रुपयाची मागणी केली व त्यासा ी पाच
ठिदवसांचीमुदतठिदलीवत्यांनेमाझीठिदल्लीपयKत
ओळखआहे वमीमाझीमठिस*ठिडसगाडीअशा
पध्दीतीनेसेटलमेंटकरुनचघेतलीआहेअसेसांगीतले
त्यांनतरहर्षे,वध,नचौधरीवअहिजक्यअधाडेयांनीमला
चांदणीचौकातबोलावुनघेतलेवत्यांनीसांगीतलेकी
आम्हीचैतन्यबारमध्येरमेशआहीरेयांनाभेटुनचचा,
केली जरमी 21,00000/- ( एकवीसनावफक्त )
रुपये रलेल्यावेळेवरठिदलेनाहीतरस्मेशआढीरेव
त्यांची पत्नी ए . सी . पी ऑठिफस मध्ये जावुन
पोलीसांचेवरदबावटाकुनतुम्हालाअटककरणेस
लावुनअसेबोलूनपरतमाझेमनात्ठिभलीठिनमा*ण
16/07/2025
केलीवतसेचठिदनांक पयKतमला
21,00000/- (
एकठिवसलाखरुपयेदेणेचीर्धमकी
ठिदली . मलाठिमतीदाखवुनमांडोकडून 2,00000/-
( )
दोन लाख रुपये घेतले व आता देखील माझे
मोबाईलचेव्हॉसअपवरकॉलवमेसेजकरूनमला
दुसराअॅट्राठिसटीचागुन्हादाखलकरणेचीर्धमकी
1) 2)
देतआहे म्हणुनमाझी हर्षवर्धनचौर्धरी
अठिजक्य
rdzkj .
आघाडेयांचेठिवरोर्धातकायदेठिशर आहे ”
(Emphasis added)
Page 11
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
The English translation of the same is as under:
“ I, Saurabh Ashokkumar Suman, age : 38
years, occupation : Service, residing at C-1202,
I Trade Homes, Hinjewadi Phase 2, Taluka
Mulshi, District Pune, Mobile No. 9284637758,
by remaining personally present in the Police
Station, give my Complaint-Statement in
writing, as under :
I am permanently residing at the above-
mentioned address alongwith my family
members. I have my total three flats in the
building wherein I am residing. My wife Sau.
Tulika, one son by name Shourya, one
daughter Samayara are residing jointly in one
flat and I have given remaining two flats on
rental basis. I am the Chairman of our
building’s Society. Ramesh Ahire is residing
alongwith his family in Flat No. E-1101 in E
Wing of the building wherein I am residing.
On the date 30.06.2025, I had gone to
Singapore for my work. On that day, in the
evening, while my son by name Shourya was
playing in the society premises, three to four
stray dogs attacked my son and at that time,
my son fell down. At that time, my wife and
other residents of the society saved my son
from the attack of the said dogs. However, my
son had sustained minor injuries at that time.
Thereafter, my wife had narrated this entire
incident on telephone to me at Singapore.
Thereupon, I asked the building’s security
guards to drive away the said stray dogs. After
sometime thereafter, the said security guard
sent one message on Society’s group
mentioning that Shri Ramesh Ahire and his
Page 12
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
wife prevented the Security guard to drive
away the said stray dogs and therefore, I had
asked Ramesh Ahire on the said Whatsapp
group of the Society about not allowing to
drive away the said stray dogs. As a result, we
had altercation of words in the said Whatsapp
group. Thereafter, in the midnight on that day
itself, I received a phone call of Harshvardhan
Choudhary from one unknown mobile number
i.e. 9762353636 asking me as to what matter
had taken place between myself and Ramesh
Ahire and his wife. Moreover, he started
hurling abuses at me and uttered insulting
words about my wife and therefore, quarrel
took place between me and Harshvardhan
Choudhary on telephone. Thereafter, on the
date 01.07.2025, I learnt that an offence vide
C. R. No. 79/2025 has been registered against
me under sections 352, 351 (2), 356(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with sections
3(1) (R), 3 (1) (S) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) read
with section 67 of the Information Technology
Act with Hinjewadi Police Station in pursuance
of the complaint lodged by Ramesh Ahire.
On the date 05.07.2025, at 12 pm.,
Harshvardhan Choudhary telephoned my wife
Sau. Tulika on her mobile number i.e.
8178557032 and told her, “I want to talk to
your husband”. Thereafter, Harshvardhan
Choudhary called me to meet him in Irani Cafe
at Bavdhan and we met there. At that time,
he told me about the offence registered against
me and scared me by saying: “You would be
sentenced to undergo punishment for 15 years
in the said offence” and further told me: “I
have good relations with Ramesh Ahire and his
wife and if you give me Rs.1 crore then, the
Page 13
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
offence lodged against you can be withdrawn
but if you fail to give the said amount, be
ready to undergo 15 years punishment”. At
that time, I got scared because of the talks with
Harshvardhan Choudhary and therefore, I
requested him at that time that I can not give
this much amount. Thereupon, Harshvardhan
Choudhary told me: “You have three flats in
the said society and if you give me Rs.5 lakhs
right now then, I would continue further
conversation with you”. Thereupon, out of
fear, I went to the ATM and withdrew the
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty
Thousand only) from the account of myself
and of my wife and thereafter, we, while
talking, came on foot at Chandani Chowk and
at the said place, he took the said amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- from me. Thereafter, again on
the date 06.07.2025, he called me at Durga
Cafe, Bhusari Colony and forcibly took cash of
Rs.40,000/- from my account by getting
withdrawn the same from the HDFC ATM at
Kothrud and Rs.10,000/- from my pocket.
Thus, Harshvardhan Choudhary took total
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
only) from me.
Thereafter, on the date 12.07.2025,
Harshvardhan Choudhary called me to meet
him. At that time, Ajinkya Aghade had
accompanied him. He introduced Ajinkya
Aghade as Cyber and Forensic Expert. At that
time, Harshvardhan Choudhary demanded the
amount of Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs from me
and asked me to give the said amount within
four days and scared me by saying: “If you do
not give the said amount within the aforesaid
period, we will ask the Police to arrest you and
to put you in jail”. He further threatened me
by saying: “If you do not give the said amount
Page 14
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
then Sneha Ahire is prepared to lodge an
offence against you under sections 376, 354
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code” and thus,
scared me. At that time, Harshvardhan
Choudhary and Ajinkya Aghade asked me to
give the amount of Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs
from out of the said amount of Rupees Thirty
Five Lakhs and to give remaining amount
within further two days. Thereupon, I told
them at that time: “As of now, I do not have
that much amount”. Thereupon, Harshvardhan
Choudhary and Ajinkya Aghade asked me to
give the amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs right
now immediately and to give the balance of
Rupees Fifteen Lakhs after seven days. At that
time, I told them that it is beyond my capacity
to give this much amount. Thereupon, I
requested them and both of them became
ready to settle the matter in Rupees Twenty
Lakhs. At that time itself, Harshvardhan
Choudhary told me that I would have to give
the amount of Rupees Eighty Five Thousand to
Ajinkya Aghade separately and demanded
Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs) as
full and final settlement amount and gave me
the period of five days for the same. He further
told me: “I have ties upto Delhi and I have
taken my Mercedes Car by arriving at
settlement in this manner itself”.
Thereafter, Harshvardhan Choudhary and
Ajinkya Aghade called me in Chandani Chowk
and told me: “We met Ramesh Ahire in
Chaitanya Bar and discussed with him” and
further told me: “If I fail to pay the amount of
Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs)
within the period as decided earlier then,
Ramesh Ahire and his wife would approach the
Office of the ACP and by pressurizing the
Police, they would make the Police to arrest
Page 15
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
you”. By saying this, he again created fear in
my mind and threatened to give the amount of
Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs) by
the date 16.07.2025. He, by scaring me, took
the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs) and even now, he, by calling me and
sending messages on whatsapp of my mobile
phone, is threatening me that another offence
under the Atrocity Act would be lodged against
me. Hence, I lodge a legal complaint against 1)
Harshvardhan Choudhary; 2) Ajinkya Aghade .”
(Emphasis added)
9. Thus, main allegations against the Applicant are as follows:
05.07.2025 (Around 12:00 PM)
Harshwardhan Choudhari telephoned the
complainant’s wife, on her mobile phone and told her
that he wants to talk to her husband. Thereafter the
Applicant called the Complainant to meet him at Irani
Cafe, Bavdhan.
The Applicant informed the Complainant about the
offence registered against him.
The Applicant threatened the Complainant by stating
that the Complainant would be sentenced to undergo
punishment for 15 years in the said offence.
The Applicant further stated he has good relations
with Ramesh Ahire and his wife and if the
Complainant gives the Applicant Rs.1 crore then, the
offence lodged against the Complainant can be
withdrawn but if the Complainant fails to give the said
amount, then he shall be ready to undergo 15 years
punishment.
When the complainant expressed his inability to pay,
the Applicant stated to the Complainant that the
Complainant has three flats and if the Complainant
Page 16
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
gives the Applicant Rs.5 lakhs immediately then the
Applicant shall continue conversations with the
Complainant.
The complainant alleges that, out of fear, he withdrew
Rs.1,50,000/- and handed over the said amount to the
Applicant - Harshwardhan Choudhari at Chandani
Chowk.
06.07.2025
The Applicant called the complainant to Durga Cafe,
Bhusari Colony.
The Applicant forcibly took cash of Rs.40,000/-
withdrawn from HDFC ATM, Kothrud. He also took
Rs.10,000/- from the complainant’s pocket.
According to the complainant, Harshwardhan
Choudhari thereby took a total amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- from him.
12.07.2025 – Meeting with Ajinkya Aghade
The Applicant demanded Rs.35 lakhs and asked the
complainant to pay the amount within four days.
The Applicant threatened the Complainant that if the
Complainant fails to give the said amount within the
aforesaid period, then he will ask the Police to arrest
the complainant and to put the complainant in jail.
He further threatened that if the Complainant does
not give the said amount, then Sneha Ahire is
prepared to lodge an offence against the Complainant
under sections 376, 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The Applicant- Harshwardhan Choudhari and Ajinkya
Aghade demanded Rs.25 lakhs immediately out of the
said Rs. 35 lakhs and the balance Rs.10 lakhs within a
period of 2 days thereafter.
The complainant expressed inability to pay and
offered to settle the matter for Rs.20 lakhs.
The Applicant allegedly further stated that the
complainant would have to pay Rs.85,000/-
separately to Ajinkya Aghade. The Applicant
Page 17
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
demanded Rs.21,00,000/- as full and final settlement
amount and granted five days’ time.
The Applicant further stated that he has ties upto
Delhi and he has taken his Mercedes Car by arriving at
settlement in this manner itself.
Subsequent Meeting at Chandani
Chowk
The Applicant and Ajinkya Aghade allegedly informed
the complainant that they met Ramesh Ahire in
Chaitanya Bar and discussed with him. They further
stated that if the Complainant fails to pay the amount
of Rs.21,00,000/- within the period as decided earlier
then, Ramesh Ahire and his wife would approach the
Office of the ACP and by pressurizing the Police, they
would make the Police to arrest the applicant.
The Applicant, by scaring the Complainant, took
Rs.2,00,000/- from him.
The Applicant continued to threaten the Complainant
through telephone calls and WhatsApp messages,
stating that another offence under the Atrocity Act
would be lodged against him.
(Emphasis added)
10. Thus, it is very clear that very serious allegations are made
against the Applicant.
11. It is significant to note that apart from the other material on
record, during investigation, the police have found the details of
WhatsAPP Chats sent by the Applicant and Respondent No.2 to
each other. The relevant WhatsAPP Chats are on page 143, which
read as under:
Page 18
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
“6/07/2025, 11:38 am - Harshall Chaudhary: You
insulted me on the basis of my caste and issued
threats to me while on speakerphone, in front of
people's. Furthermore, you intimidate me by
claiming to have personal contacts with the senior
political leader nitin gadkari. I am filing an FIR
against you under the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
16/07/2025, 2:24 pm +91 92846 37758: Why are
you filing false complaint today as we discussed
already till today evening I will arrange 5 lacs plus
6 lacs if the cheque gets cleared today, by today
evening only. And rest I will give you by tomorrow
EOD .”
(Emphasis added)
th
12. Thus, it is clear that the Applicant on 16 July 2025 at 11:38
a.m., has sent a message to Respondent No.2 stating that the
Respondent No.2 has insulted him on the basis of caste and issued
the threats to him by keeping the mobile on speaker phone mode
in front of the people and therefore, the Applicant would be filing
FIR against Respondent No.2 under the provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. To these messages, Respondent No.2 has
responded by saying that why the Applicant would be filing a false
complaint and as discussed already, by said evening he would
Page 19
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
arrange Rs.5,00,000/ plus to Rs.6,00,000/- if the cheque gets
cleared by that day evening and the rest would be given on the
next day. This is significant since as per the FIR, amount to be paid
was decided as Rs.21,00,000/-. The only response of the present
Applicant to these WhatsAPP Chats was question mark. Thus, these
WhatsAPP Chats clearly supports the prosecution case that the
Applicant is extorting money from Respondent No.2 by threatening
to lodge FIR under the stringent provisions of the S.C.S.T. Act.
13. Thereafter, again the Applicant has sent WhatsAPP message
to Respondent No.2 stating that by using extremely offensive and
casteist remarks, Respondent No.2 has targeted the Applicant and
that Respondent No.2 has sought his help therefore, he was
helping but hereinafter he would not help Respondent No.2.
Thereafter, the Applicant has blocked the contact.
14. These WhatsAPP Chats are also supported by the transcript
of the conversation between the Applicant and Respondent No.2,
which is produced at page 267 to 271. In the said conversation,
Respondent No.2 is talking about mental torture which the
Applicant has subjected to Respondent No.2. There is reference in
Page 20
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
the said conversation about the deposit of cheque and encashment
of the same. In fact, in the said conversation there is reference of
sale of flat belonging to Respondent No.2.
15. As noted earlier, the FIR records that the Applicant had
made demand of Rs.1 crore and further suggested Respondent
No.2 to sale one of his flats and then pay the money. Thus, the
transcript of the said conversation also prima facie , supports the
case in the FIR.
16. In this background of the matter, it is required to consider
the order of the learned JMFC. The learned JMFC has mentioned
that the offence is under Sections 308 (2), 308(3) and 351(2), (3)
and (5) of the BNS, 2023 and that the offence is triable by the
same Court i.e. by the learned JMFC. The order of the learned
th th
JMFC is dated 19 August 2025. However, on 6 August 2025,
Section 111(3) of the BNS, 2023 has been added as at that time, 7
offences have been registered against the Applicant. Section 111 of
the BNS, 2023 is regarding organised crime, which reads as
under :
Page 21
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
“ 111. Organised crime.— (1) Any continuing
unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery,
vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract
killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking
of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or
services, human trafficking for prostitution or
ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting
in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of
an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence,
intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful
means to obtain direct or indirect material benefit
including a financial benefit, shall constitute
organised crime. ...
(3) Whoever abets, attempts, conspires or
knowingly facilitates the commission of an
organised crime, or otherwise engages in any act
preparatory to an organised crime, shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine
which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(Emphasis added)
th
17. Thus, it is very clear that the order dated 19 August 2025
passed by the learned JMFC is totally illegal and perverse as the
learned JMFC has completely ignored that the offence under
Section 111(3) of the BNS, 2023 has been added. The punishment
is not less than 5 years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life.
Page 22
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
18. Perusal of the order of the learned JMFC clearly shows that
serious allegations made against the Applicant are not taken into
consideration. Even it is not taken into consideration that there are
7 offences already registered against the Applicant and therefore,
the Applicant is habitual criminal.
In this background of the matter, it is relevant to note the
19.
observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph
No.14, which reads as under:
“ 14] On going through the above said section, it
reveals that if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for life and the offence is exclusively
triable by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate have
no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the bail
application. If the person who is woman or is sick or
infirm or child, then only Magistrate can entertain
bail application. Herein this case, the
respondent/accused is not fall within any category
of explanation, therefore, in my bail to opinion,
Magistrate granted respondent/accused No.1
without jurisdiction. It is the basic principle that the
order granting bail suffers from non application of
mind. Then, the Court can cancel the bail of the
accused. In case at hand, the learned Magistrate is
totally silent about the addition of section 111(3) of
the BNS, 2023. Further more, the Magistrate hold
that offence is triable by this Court, itself shows that
learned Magistrate has not applied the mind. He
didn't consider that the offence is exclusively triable
by the Sessions Court and the punishment
prescribed for additional section of 111(3) is
Page 23
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
imprisonment for life. Considering the gravity of the
offence, nature and seriousness of the offence, the
bail granted to the accused needs to be set aside.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order. ”
(Emphasis added)
20. Thus, it is clear that the order of the learned JMFC is totally
illegal and perverse.
21. To substantiate the contention that the learned JMFC has
jurisdiction to grant bail even in sessions triable case, the learned
Counsel of the Applicant has relied on the decisions in the case of
Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra) of the Supreme Court. In the said
decision, this aspect has been considered in detail. The relevant
paragraphs are paragraph Nos.6 to 9, which read as under:
“ 6. Even though there is no legal bar for a
Magistrate to consider an application for grant of
bail to a person who is arrested for an offence
exclusively triable by a Court of Session yet it would
be proper and appropriate that in such a case the
Magistrate directs the accused person to approach
the Court of Session for the purposes of getting the
relief of bail. Even in a case where any Magistrate
opts to make an adventure of exercising the powers
under Section 437 of the Code in respect of a
person who is suspected of the commission of such
an offence, arrested and detained in that
connection, such Magistrate has to specifically
Page 24
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
negate the existence of reasonable ground for
believing that such an accused is guilty of an
offence punishable with the sentence of death or
imprisonment for life. In a case where the
Magistrate has no occasion and in fact does not
find, that there were no reasonable grounds to
believe that the accused had not committed the
offence punishable with death or imprisonment for
life, he shall be deemed to be having no jurisdiction
to enlarge the accused on bail.
7. Powers of the Magistrate, while dealing with the
applications for grant of bail, are regulated by the
punishment prescribed for the offence in which the
bail is sought. Generally speaking if punishment
prescribed is for imprisonment for life and death
penalty and the offence is exclusively triable by the
Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction
to grant bail unless the matter is covered by the
provisos attached to Section 437 of the Code. The
limitations circumscribing the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate are evident and apparent. Assumption of
jurisdiction to entertain the application is
distinguishable from the exercise of the jurisdiction.
8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised
on the basis of well-settled principles having regard
to the circumstances of each case and not in an
arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court
has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the
nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity
of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character, behaviour, means and standing of the
accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with,
the larger interests of the public or State and similar
other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind
that for the purposes of granting the bail the
Page 25
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds
for believing” instead of “the evidence” which
means the court dealing with the grant of bail can
only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected,
at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
9. In the instant case while exercising the
jurisdiction, apparently under Section 437 of the
Code, the Metropolitan Magistrate appears to have
completely ignored the basic principles governing
the grant of bail. The Magistrate referred to certain
facts and the provisions of law which were not, in
any way, relevant for the purposes of deciding the
application for bail in a case where the accused was
charged with an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The mere initial grant of
anticipatory bail for lesser offence, did not entitle
the respondent to insist for regular bail even if he
was subsequently found to be involved in the case
of murder. Neither Section 437(5) nor Section
439(1) of the Code was attracted. There was no
question of cancellation of bail earlier granted to
the accused for an offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 306 and 406 IPC. The Magistrate
committed an irregularity by holding that “I do not
agree with the submission made by the learned
Prosecutor inasmuch as if we go by his submissions
then the accused would be liable for arrest every
time the charge is altered or enhanced at any stage,
which is certainly not in the spirit of law”. With the
change of the nature of the offence, the accused
becomes disentitled to the liberty granted to him in
relation to a minor offence, if the offence is altered
for an aggravated crime. Instead of referring to the
grounds which entitled the respondent-accused the
grant of bail, the Magistrate adopted a wrong
Page 26
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
approach to confer on him the benefit of liberty on
allegedly finding that no grounds were made out for
cancellation of bail. ”
(Emphasis added)
22. Thus, what the Supreme Court has said that although there
is no legal bar for a Magistrate to consider an application for grant
of bail to a person who is arrested for an offence exclusively triable
by a Court of Session yet it would be proper and appropriate that
in such a case the Magistrate directs the accused person to
approach the Court of Session for the purposes of getting the relief
of bail. The Supreme Court has further observed that if the learned
Magistrate opts to make an adventure of exercising the powers
under Section 437 of the Code in respect of a person who is
suspected of the commission of such an offence, arrested and
detained in that connection, such Magistrate has to specifically
negate the existence of reasonable ground for believing that such
an accused is guilty of an offence punishable with the sentence of
death or imprisonment for life. In a case where the Magistrate has
no occasion and in fact does not find, that there were no
reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had not committed
the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he
Page 27
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
shall be deemed to be having no jurisdiction to enlarge the accused
on bail.
23. Learned Advocate of the Applicant has more particularly
relied on following observations of the Supreme Court in the case
of Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra) and submitted that the Magistrate
will have no jurisdiction to grant bail only if both the punishments
are prescribed i.e. for imprisonment for life and death:
“Generally speaking if punishment prescribed is for
imprisonment for life and death penalty and the
offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session,
the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail
unless the matter is covered by the provisos
attached to Section 437 of the Code.”
(Emphasis added)
The said submission is without any basis as the Supreme
Court was considering scope of Section 437. Said Section provides
that a person shall not be so released by Court other than High
Court or Court of Session if there appears reasonable grounds for
believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. The same is also clear from the
observations made in Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra) in paragraph 6
Page 28
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
to the effect that even though there is no legal bar for a Magistrate
to consider an application for grant of bail to a person who is
arrested for an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Session yet
it would be proper and appropriate that in such a case the
Magistrate directs the accused person to approach the Court of
Session for the purposes of getting the relief of bail.
In this particular case, the learned JMFC although aware
24.
that Section 111(3) of the BNS, 2023 has been added, has
completely ignored the same. Apart from that, the order of the
th
learned JMFC dated 19 August 2025 do not show that the learned
Magistrate has recorded satisfaction that no offence under Section
111(3) of the BNS, 2023 has been committed and that there is no
ground to believe that the offence is committed under Section
111(3) of the BNS, 2023. The said requirement as per Prahlad
Singh Bhati (supra) is the mandatory requirement.
In this case, Section 111(3) of the BNS, 2023 has been
25.
added, as during investigation the police have found that there are
7 offences registered against the Applicant. The details of the same
Page 29
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
th
are set out in the police report dated 6 August 2025. The details
of those 7 cases are as follows:
Sr.
No.
Police Station C.R. No. Sections invoked
1. Yerwada Police Station, 317/2023 354(C), 354(D), 500,
Pune 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code,
1860.
2. Lashkar Police Station, Pune 34/2022 354(D), 500, 504,
506 and 509 of the
Indian Penal Code,
1860.
3. Bolinj Police Station, Mira 129/2025 316(2), 318(4),
Bhayandar 351(2) and 352 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023
4. Kothrud Police Station, Pune 103/2022 354(D), 500, 504,
506, 507 and 509 of
the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
5. Parksite Police Station, 165/2025 318(4) and 316(2) of
Mumbai the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023
6. Khar Police Station, Mumbai 217/2025 318(4), 316(2), 352,
351(2), 61(2), 79,
356(2), 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023
7. Ravet Police Station, Pune 494/2024 352, 351(2), 351(3),
352(4), 79, 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023
Page 30
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
26. The learned APP has submitted that in fact, there is one
more offence which is registered against the Applicant and the
same is not included in the above details. The said offence is
registered at Samarth Police Station, Pune bearing C.R. No.255 of
2025 registered under Section 318(4), 308(2) and 351(2)of the
BNS, 2023.
27. Thus, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the order
of the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction, as only if the
learned JMFC records the satisfaction that no case is made out
under Section 111(3) of the BNS, 2023, the learned JMFC will not
get jurisdiction to consider the Application seeking bail in view of
the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad
Singh Bhati (supra). There is no such satisfaction recorded by the
learned JMFC. Thus, the order passed by learned JMFC is illegal
and without jurisdiction.
28. There is some substance in the contention raised by the
learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the learned
Sessions Judge has not considered the merits as can be seen from
paragraph No.14 of the said order.
Page 31
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
29. However, the factual aspects are already set out hereinabove.
This is a very serious case where the Applicant is involved in very
serious crime of extortion under Section 308(2) and (3) of the
BNS, 2023 and criminal intimidation under Section 351(2) of the
BNS, 2023. The Applicant by threatening the Respondent No.2 that
complaint would be filed against him under the S.C.S.T. Act, has
extorted huge amount. There are total 9 offences registered against
the Applicant including the present offence. Thus, organised crime
under Section 111(3) of the BNS, 2023 is attracted.
30. The learned Sessions Court has also recorded some reasons
in paragraph Nos.4, 12 and 14. The learned Sessions Court has
observed that considering the gravity of the offence bail granted to
the accused needs to be set aside.
31. The parameters of granting bail are well established. The
jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-
settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case
and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court
has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of
evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
Page 32
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing
of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at
the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other
considerations. The learned JMFC has completely ignored all these
well established parameters. If the case of the Applicant is
examined on the touchstone of these parameters, then it is clear
that no case is made out for grant of bail. The offence is very
serious of extortion by threatening to file case under stringent
provisions of the S.C.S.T. Act. There is strong prima facie case as
set out hereinabove. The Applicant is involved in 8 other cases.
The Applicant was absconding for considerable period. Thus, there
is no reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused
at trial.
32. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for
interference in the impugned order.
33. Accordingly, the Criminal Application is dismissed.
Page 33
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
34. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant seeks continuation of the order passed by this Court
th
yesterday i.e. on 16 June 2026. It is required to be noted that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune passed the order dated
th
29 January 2026 cancelling the bail granted by the learned JMFC
to the Applicant and granted 7 days protection to the Applicant. At
no point of time this Court has granted any protection. The
Applicant’s conduct is noted by the learned Single Judge in the
th
order dated 18 April 2026 and the learned Single Judge directed
the police to take steps to arrest the Applicant. After this Court
granted limited protection yesterday, today the hearing of this
Application was tried to be delayed by making false statement that
the Transfer Petition is filed in the Supreme Court.
35. In any case, as observed hereinabove, there are 8 cases
registered against the Applicant, apart from the present case. The
Applicant is habitual criminal. There is likelihood that the
Applicant will abscond.
36. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of any protection.
Page 34
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::
902-APL-333-2026.DOC
37. The Criminal Application is dismissed.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
MILIND
PATIL
Date:
2026.06.17
20:20:25
+0530
SONALI
MILIND
PATIL
Page 35
Sonali
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 20:31:00 :::