Krushna Ajit Sarda Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Krushna Ajit Sarda Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection granted by order dated 24.02.2025 confirmed on conditions (police-station attendance as required by the IO; no tampering with evidence or influencing of informant/witnesses; co-operation with investigation and trial); the anticipatory bail application and the companion application for assist to public prosecutor (Criminal Application No. 842 of 2025) stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim protection granted to the applicant by order dated 24.02.2025 in Crime No.46/2025 should be confirmed, notwithstanding the learned APP's submission that Rs.10,000/- was to be recovered from the applicant and that two NCs were registered with alleged violation of the terms and conditions.

Court's answer

Taking into account the complainant's grievance that the non-obscene photographs were made viral causing dispute in the informant's family, the possibility of registration of further NCs cannot be ruled out and, looking to the gravity of the offence, the interim protection granted earlier can be confirmed.

Ratio / Principle

The interim protection granted by order dated 24.02.2025 stands confirmed, on specified terms.

Key takeaways

Condition imposed: the applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer.ratio¶33
Condition imposed: the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner and shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.ratio¶36
Condition imposed: the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Arun R. Pedneker, J., 17.04.2025 — Anticipatory Bail Application No. 313 of 2025 (Krushna Ajit Sarda) regarding apprehended arrest in Crime No. 46/2025, City Police Station, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, for offences under Sections 308(2), 308(3) and 356(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; FIR alleging circulation of photographs of the informant's engagement ceremony after an alleged unfulfilled demand of Rs. 5 lacs. Interim protection granted on 24.02.2025 was CONFIRMED despite the APP's objections that Rs. 10,000/- was to be recovered from the applicant and that two NCs were registered with alleged breach of conditions; the court held that further NCs could not be ruled out and, considering the gravity of the offence, the protection could stand. Conditions: attendance at the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer; no tampering with prosecution evidence and no influencing of the informant or witnesses; co-operation with the investigation and trial; breach renders the order liable to cancellation. Observations confined to disposal of the bail application, leaving the trial Court uninfluenced. Companion Criminal Application No. 842 of 2025 (Shivanjali Badshah Godse, assist to public prosecutor) also disposed of.

2025:BHC-AUG:11232

1

960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

960 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 313 OF 2025 KRUSHNA AJIT SARDA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Abhijit S. More APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. R. Dayama

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 842 OF 2025

IN

ABA/313/2025 SHIVANJALI BADSHAH GODSE

VERSUS

KRUSHNA AJIT SARDA AND ANOTHER

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Nitin S. Salunke APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. R. Dayama Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Abhijit S. More

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 17.04.2025

P.C. :

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the assist to public prosecutor.

2] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.46/2025, registered at City

2

960

Police Station, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 308 (2), 308(3), 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3] This court by order dated 24.02.2025 granted interim protection to the applicant noticing submissions and reasons at paragraphs no.3 and 4, as under:

“3] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant that he has made viral certain photographs of engagement ceremony of the informant and one Akshay. It is alleged that the present applicant demanded Rs.5 lacs from the Akash and therefore Akshay did not fulfill the demand of the present applicant regarding demand of Rs.5 lacs, as such, the applicant had posted those photographs. On the basis of said allegation, the present FIR is lodged against the present applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is not aware about the informant.

4] Considering the submissions as there is no demand of money made to the informant so also the photos are not obscene ones, the interim protection is granted in favour of the applicant in the following terms :-...”

4] Thereafter, by order dated 24.03.2025 submissions of the applicant is recorded that she would surrender the mobile phone and attend the police station. Thereafter, she had surrendered the mobile phone and attend the police station.

3

960

5] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that investigation in the matter is now nearly complete and that interim protection may be confirmed.

6] The learned APP submits that Rs.10,000/- is to be recovered from the applicant, so also, learned counsel for the assist to public prosecutor submits that two NCs are registered and thereafter the applicant has violated the terms and conditions. To which, the learned counsel for the applicant in response submits that the applicant has not taken the amount of Rs.10,000/- as alleged. He submits that the Ncs are registered to avoid the grant of / confirmation of the interim order.

7] There is grievance of the complainant that the photographs were made viral, although, they are not obscene and on account of which certain dispute occurred in the family of the informant. Considering this, the possibility of registering of the further NCs cannot be ruled out, so also, looking to the gravity of the offence, the interim protection granted earlier can be confirmed.

8] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 24.02.2025 stands confirmed, on the following terms:

i] The applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

960

4

ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. She shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

9] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

10] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

11] The application stands disposed of.

12] The application for assist to public prosecutor is also disposed of.

marathe

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE