Dismissed¶28

Siddhesh Vijay Undale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Nov 2025ABA/3231/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; Crime No. 315 of 2025, Nallasopara Hill Police Station; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Ss. 137, 115(2), 118(1), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(3), 352; Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act 2014 Ss. 39, 45; forcible recovery of loan amount; abduction and assault of borrower (fist and kick blows, iron rod, wooden stick); threat of dire consequences; delay in lodging FIR; allegation of false case to avoid repayment; involvement in multiple crimes of similar nature; applicants Jafar Munna Khan, Salman Munna Khan @ Salman Bhai, Siddhesh Vijay Undale; N.R. Borkar, J.; decided 04.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

As both applications arise out of one and the same crime, they were disposed of by a common order. ¶16

Siddhesh Vijay Undale vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

904-aba-3223-3231-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3223 OF 2025

¶4

Jafar Munna Khan

¶5

Salman Munna Khan @ Salman Bhai …Applicants V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3231 OF 2025

¶9

Siddhesh Vijay Undale ...Applicant V/s.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Mr. Waqar Nasir Pathan through VC, a/w Adv. Yash A., Advocate for the Applicants.

¶13

Ms. A. A. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State. Adv. Bhaskar Jha, through VC a/w Adv. Abhishek Debey, Advocate for first informant.

¶14

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 04.12.2025.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Both these applications are arising out of one and the same crime, they are thus being disposed of by this common order.

¶17

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 315 of 2025 registered at Nallasopara Hill Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 137, 115(2), 118(1), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(3) & 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 39 & 45 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.

¶18

Pramod S.Lakare

¶19

1/3

¶20

904-aba-3223-3231-2025.doc

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that in December 2024 the complainant required financial assistance. Accordingly, he approached the applicants Jafar Munna Khan & Salman Munna Khan and borrowed an amount of Rs.24,000/- in his sister’s name. However, due to financial difficulties the complainant failed to repay Rs.11,000/-. On 30.06.2025 at about 10:30 p.m., while the complainant was going home, co-accused Sunny and Sudhir approached him on a motor cycle and forcibly took him to applicant Jafar’s office. It is alleged that the complainant was assaulted with fist and kick blows as well as with a iron rod and wooden stick by the co-accused. It is further alleged that the complainant was threatened with dire consequences if he failed to return the borrowed amount. The allegations against the present applicants and other co-accused are of abduction to recover the money borrowed by the first informant from one of the coaccused.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that false allegations are made against the applicants with some ulterior motive as to avoid the repayment of the loan amount. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicants are ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation.

¶24

Pramod S.Lakare

¶25

2/3

¶26

904-aba-3223-3231-2025.doc

¶27

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondentState submits that the applicants are involved in multiple crimes of similar nature. It is submitted that similar allegations are made by some of the witnesses against the applicants. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime the applicants may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶28

Considering the nature of offence and as the applicants are involved in multiple crimes of similar nature, I am not inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. The applications are rejected.

¶29

Pramod S.Lakare

¶30

3/3

Siddhesh Vijay Undale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddhesh Vijay Undale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhavesh P Bhinde vs State of Maharashtra

Aniket Anil Mujumdar vs the State of Maharashtra

Nisar Ismail Waghoo vs State of Maharashtra

Ruchi Shah vs State of Maharashtra

Shobhit Rajan vs State of Maharashtra

Pulin Bole vs State of Maharashtra