Disposed¶28

Saurabh Baliram Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Apr 2025ABA/494/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application 494 of 2025; Saurabh Baliram Rathod v. State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Arun R. Pedneker, J.; 16.04.2025; Crime No.0050/2025, Talwada Police Station, Beed; Sections 303(2), 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; alleged theft of solar motor pump and wiring; interim protection of 27.03.2025 confirmed for cooperation with investigation; no further custodial interrogation; conditions imposed; application disposed.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted by order dated 27.03.2025 confirmed, subject to conditions (attendance at police station as and when required, non-tampering with evidence/non-influencing of informant and witnesses, cooperation with investigation and trial); breach liable to cancellation. ¶28

Saurabh Baliram Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No.0050/2025 (Talwada Police Station, Beed) under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is entitled to anticipatory bail / confirmation of the interim protection already granted.

¶12

Court's answer

Since the applicant had attended the concerned police station and cooperated with the investigation, no further custodial interrogation was necessary, and the interim protection granted by order dated 27.03.2025 stands confirmed.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The confirmed protection is subject to conditions: the applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer, shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence the informant/witnesses, and shall cooperate with the investigation and trial proceedings; violation renders the protection liable to cancellation.

¶23

Key takeaways

The observations in the order are limited to the disposal of the anticipatory bail application; the trial court is to proceed in the matter without being influenced by them.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — applicant apprehending arrest in Crime No.0050/2025 dated 14.02.2025, Talwada Police Station, Beed, for offences under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from alleged theft of a solar-powered motor pump and wiring found in adjacent land, suspicion based on applicant allegedly seen running from the field — interim protection earlier granted by order dated 27.03.2025 — applicant thereafter attended the police station and cooperated with investigation — held, no further custodial interrogation necessary; interim protection confirmed on conditions of attendance as and when required by the Investigating Officer, non-tampering with evidence, non-influencing of informant/witnesses, and cooperation with investigation and trial; violation liable to cancellation — observations confined to disposal of the application; trial court to proceed uninfluenced. (Bench at Aurangabad; Arun R. Pedneker, J.; 16.04.2025)

¶1

¶2

946

¶3

2025:BHC-AUG:10984

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

946 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 494 OF 2025 SAURABH BALIRAM RATHOD VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Yogesh K. Bobade APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. R. Dayama

¶8

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

¶9

DATE : 16.04.2025

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶12

2] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0050/2025, dated 14.02.2025, registered at Talwada Police Station, Beed, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶13

3] This court by order dated 27.03.2025 granted interim protection to the applicant considering the submissions of the applicant and reasons given in paragraphs no.3 and 4, as under:

¶14

“3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation in the complaint is that the motor pump, which operates on solar power, and its wiring were stolen by an

¶15

¶16

946

¶17

unknown person. The stolen items were later found in the adjacent land. The informant suspects the applicant has committed the offence as he was allegedly seen running away from the field where the stolen motor and wire were found. Based on this suspicion, the applicant has been accused of committing the theft of the solar pump.

¶18

The learned Counsel further submits that the applicant is a respected person in the village with no antecedents. There is no reason for him to commit theft in the informant’s field, and the allegations are purely based on suspicion.”

¶19

4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that thereafter the applicant has attended the concerned police station and cooperated with the investigation. However, the learned APP submits that the applicant has not produced the missing articles. In response to which the learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is not involved in the offence and his submission regarding stolen articles is recorded in the order dated 27.03.2025.

¶20

5] Considering that the applicant has attended the concerned police station and cooperated with the investigation, no further custodial interrogation would be necessary. In view of that, the interim protection granted by order dated 27.03.2025 stands confirmed, on the following terms:

¶21

¶22

946

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

7] 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.

¶28

8] The application stands disposed of.

¶29

marathe

¶30

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

Saurabh Baliram Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Baliram Rathod v. the 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

Similar cases

Monan Maruti Durkule vs Machindra Datttraya Raskar

Sunil Shankarlal Sawaiwala Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapurao Vaijinath Kamjalge and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Nanasaheb Vikram Bhad vs Gov. of India Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization (Peso) and Others

Amol Prakash Bhosale vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pradip Sunil Sarode vs the State of Maharashtra and Another