Amit Gangadhar Shendge vs State of Maharashtra

Heard Mr. Bhavake, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Mr. Karmakar, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State and Ms. Yadav, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Respondent No.2.

¶13

By this applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023 (“ BNSS ”) the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.190 of 2025 registered on 31^st August 2025 with Kharadi Police Station, Pune

¶14

Page 1

¶15

917-ABA-2563-2025.DOC

¶16

Akash Tayde

¶17

City for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS ”).

¶18

The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.3 of order dated 10^th September 2025 passed by learned District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.6002 of 2025, which reads as under :-

¶19

“3. In short allegations in the complaint against the accused are that the prosecutrix is aged about 33 years. The accused is around 31 years old. They got acquainted with each other on the basis of their bio-data on matrimonial site. The accused sent a request for marriage to her. He also informed her that she is older than him bu his family has no issues about it. Thereafter they were talking on phone. On 22/11/2023 he called her to pune for his birthday on next day. She carried Rs.30,000/with her, when they met, he told her that he is in need of money. Therefore, he took than money. They stayed in a hotel where by saying that now they will perform marriage, he had physical relations with her without her consent. They again on 25/09/2024 he called her at Pune by saying that he is badly missing her. When she came on 26/09/2024 in another hotel on the same pretext he has forcible relations. He was not taking her to meet his parents. Then in February 2025 she informed him that she is going to Mumbai for her examination, so accused called her at Pune. Then on his activa they went to Mumbai. There also he had forcible relations.”

¶20

Page 2

¶21

917-ABA-2563-2025.DOC

¶22

Akash Tayde

¶23

Mr. Bhavake, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has cooperated with the investigation. He submits that the Applicant is not involved in the crime and there is no other antecedent.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr. Karmakar, learned APP and Ms. Yadav, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of Respondent No.2, strongly oppose granting the Anticipatory Bail. Both of them submitted that by giving false assurance of marriage the Applicant has established physical relations with the First Informant. Therefore, Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected. Mr. Karmkar, learned APP, on instructions states that there is no other antecedent. He further states that the investigation is completed and chargehsheet is almost ready.

¶25

Perusal of the record shows that the investigation is almost completed and chargesheet will be filed within a short period. The Applicant has cooperated with the investigation in terms of the earlier order and even handed over his cell phone to the Investigating Officer.

¶26

Page 3

¶27

917-ABA-2563-2025.DOC

¶28

Akash Tayde

¶29

Accordingly, the case is made out for grant of Anticipatory

¶30

Bail.

¶31

In view thereof, the following order is passed:

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant -Amit Gangadhar Shendge in connection with C.R. No. 190 of 2025 registered with Kharadi Police Station, Pune City the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶34

(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet and shall cooperate with the investigation. In addition, the Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called.

¶35

(c) The Applicant shall furnish their cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer

¶36

Page 4

¶37

917-ABA-2563-2025.DOC

¶38

Akash Tayde

¶39

and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶40

(d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.

¶41

(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any witness in any manner.

¶42

(f) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶43

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶44

This Court places on record the appreciation of the assistance rendered by Suvarna Yadav, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Respondent No.2.

¶45

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶46

Page 5

Amit Gangadhar Shendge v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Gangadhar Shendge v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dilip Jethalal Modi vs Shri Bansidhar B. Gupta (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. and Anr.

M/S. Ramnarain Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs the Board of Mumbai Fort Authority and Anr.

Katty Minoo Dastur and Anr. vs Wmt Apparels Ltd.

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Mishra Rohan

Indusind Bank Ltd. and Dilip Ganpat Morbale (Applicant) vs Ramchandra G. Morbale and Anr. and Dilip Ganpat Morbale - Applicant

Sgs Infratech Limited vs Mmtc Gitanjali Private Limited