HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Rajesh S. Patil, J., order dated 23.04.2025, disposing of three connected anticipatory bail applications arising out of FIR No.49/2025, Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural. Facts: the victim girl was married to Omkar Dattatray Jadhav with the consent of both families on 9/10/2022 and stayed in the matrimonial home for over two years; after returning to her parents' house she eloped with, and was kidnapped by, Kumar Kamble on 18/1/2025 with the aid of Scorpio driver Dattatraya Bhise and was kept in the house of Umesh Kshirsagar; the FIR, initially lodged only under the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping on the complaint of the victim's mother (herself arraigned as accused), later attracted the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, whereupon the present applicants were added as accused; charge-sheet already filed against the arrested accused Omkar Jadhav, Kumar Kamble and Sarika Jadhav, and the charge-sheet against the other accused ready. HELD: (i) custody of the victim girl's parents (Hanumant Kisan Mane and anr., ABA 1024/2025) and of her father-in-law (Dattatray Mahadeo Jadhav, ABA 934/2025) not necessary at the charge-sheet stage — anticipatory bail allowed on P.R. bonds of Rs.15,000/- each (parents) and Rs.20,000/- (father-in-law) with sureties, subject to conditions including appearance before the IO on 28/4/2025 and 29/4/2025, no inducement/tampering, and furnishing addresses/contact details; (ii) ABA 796/2025 of Dattatray @ Appa Dnyandev Bhise, driver of the Scorpio used in the kidnapping, associate of the arrested Kumar Kamble (found in possession of a revolver and a bullet, with a criminal background) — physical presence necessary for interrogation and the possibility of pressurising witnesses and tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out — anticipatory bail REJECTED, relying on Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391 (absence of need for custodial interrogation by itself no ground for anticipatory bail; prima facie case to be considered first) and C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, AIR OnLine 1997 SC 797. Observations confined to the anticipatory bail question; trial Court to proceed uninfluenced.
