Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249256

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR
VIDYA SHANKAR BADE-SANGLE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS – Respondent
ABA/3450/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin P. Deshpande, Mayur Nikam, Anjali S. Shinde, Santosh P. Kurade, Rajendra Anbhule, Gayatri Kale
For the Respondents: Nitin Gaware Patil, Shantanu Kolhe, Harsh Rahtod, S. M. Yadav, S. K. Gajre

In anticipatory bail applications, the court's focus is on the necessity of custodial interrogation. Absent criminal antecedents and where there is a willingness to cooperate with the investigation, particularly in complex civil-related property disputes, bail should be granted rather than compelling custodial detention.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory Bail - Custodial interrogation - Necessity of - Held, in applications for pre-arrest bail, the primary issue is whether custodial interrogation is required and if the applicants will cooperate with the investigation - Where the core dispute concerns the title of land and previous judicial observations contradict the prosecution's claim of government ownership, custodial interrogation may not be warranted absent any criminal antecedents. (Paras 11, 15, 17, 18, 20)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Factors for consideration - Court is not required to conduct a detailed trial on the validity of civil transactions within bail proceedings; rather, it must assess whether the liberty of the individual should be curtailed for the purposes of investigation. (Paras 11, 18)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were accused of selling land belonging to a government department without required permission. The prosecution alleged this constituted offences under the relevant criminal code. The defence contended that previous judicial findings had already clarified that the land in question was not part of the acquired property claimed by the authorities. The applicants sought anticipatory bail, arguing they were falsely implicated and had no prior criminal record.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the dispute regarding the land title was a matter to be adjudicated elsewhere and that the prosecution lacked sufficient material to contradict previous judicial findings suggesting the land was not acquired. Since the applicants lacked criminal antecedents and were willing to cooperate with the investigation, the court found no compelling reason to subject them to custodial interrogation.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the custodial interrogation of the applicants was necessary for the investigation into the alleged illegal sale of property.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a criminal case arises from a disputed property transaction, and the investigation does not reach a threshold necessitating physical custody for evidence collection, and where the accused possess no criminal history and agree to cooperate with authorities, the court should exercise its discretion to grant pre-arrest protection to prevent unnecessary incarceration.

Result: Applications allowed; anticipatory bail granted.

##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-AS:57611 629-630-ABA-3449-2025+.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3449 OF 2025

Anjali Arvind Karle …Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3442 OF 2025

Dilip Porushotam Gupchup …Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3448 OF 2025

Nalini Bhalchandra Gupchup & Ors. …Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3450 OF 2025

Vidya Shankar Bade-Sangle …Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande a/w. Mr. Mayur Nikam, Ms. Anjali S.

Shinde and Mr. Santosh P. Kurade, for the Applicant in

ABA/3449/2025, ABA/3442/2025 and ABA/3448/2025.

Mr. Rajendra Anbhule a/w. Ms. Gayatri Kale, for the Applicant in

ABA/3450/2025.

Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w. Mr. Shantanu Kolhe and Mr. Harsh

Rahtod, for the Intervenor in ABA/3449/2025, ABA/3442/2025 and

ABA/3448/2025 and for the Respondent No.2 in ABA/3450/2025.

Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State in ABA/3449/2025,

Page 1

Sonali

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:11:46 :::

##PAGE2##

629-630-ABA-3449-2025+.DOC

ABA/3442/2025 and ABA/3448/2025.

Ms. S. K. Gajre, APP, for the Respondent-State in ABA/3450/2025.

Mr. Mahanvar, API, attached to Dapodi Police Station, Pune,

present.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 24^th DECEMBER 2025

PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3449 of 2025,

Anticipatory Bail Application No.3442 of 2025 and Anticipatory

Bail Application No.3448 of 2025 and Mr. Anbhule, learned Counsel

appearing for the Applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application

No.3450 of 2025, Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil, learned Counsel appearing

for the First Informant/Intervenor and Ms. Yadav, learned APP and

Ms. Gajre, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State.

2. The Interim Application filed by the First

Informant/Intervenor is allowed and disposed of as such.

3. These Anticipatory Bail Applications are filed under Section

482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-

arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.308 of 2025 registered with

Dapodi Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, for the offences

Page 2

Sonali

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:11:46 :::

##PAGE3##

629-630-ABA-3449-2025+.DOC

punishable under Sections 198 , 199, 316(5), 318(4) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

4. The Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3449 of

2025 is accused No.2, the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application

No.3442 of 2025 is accused No.1, the Applicants in Anticipatory Bail

Application No.3448 of 2025 are accused Nos.16 to 19 and 21 to 23

and the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3450 of 2025

is accused No.26.

5. As per the prosecution case, the heirs of the original owner-

Heramb Pandharinath Gupchup i.e. accused Nos.1 to 23 sold the

Survey No.20 totally admeasuring 6 hector and 32 R to accused

Nos.24 and 25. It is the prosecution case that the land in question is

in possession of Animal Husbandry Department of the State of

Maharashtra and that there is specific entry to the effect that the

land could not be sold without the permission of the Government of

Maharashtra and inspite of the same, the said land has been sold.

6. This Court has passed the order dated 11^th December 2025 in

Anticipatory Bail Application No.3413 of 2025 and Anticipatory

Page 3

Sonali

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:11:46 :::

##PAGE4##

629-630-ABA-3449-2025+.DOC

Bail Application No.3419 of 2025, which are filed by the accused

Nos.3, 4, 6 to 14 and accused Nos.24 and 25 respectively.

7. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants

in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3449 of 2025, Anticipatory Bail

Application No.3442 of 2025 and Anticipatory Bail Application

No.3448 of 2025 and Mr. Anubhavane, learned Counsel appearing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249256

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDARVIDYA SHANKAR BADE-SANGLE – AppellantVersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS – RespondentABA/3450/2025

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR
VIDYA SHANKAR BADE-SANGLE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS – Respondent
ABA/3450/2025