Allowed

Navnath Bhausaheb Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Apr 2026ABA/1358/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed and interim order of 05.08.2025 confirmed; ABA 1358/2025; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench; Justice Mehroz K. Pathan; Crime No.314/2024, Ambhora Police Station, Ashti, Beed; Sections 3(5) and 318(4), Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; cheating by showing girl for marriage; marriage-brokerage fraud; complainant Sharad; Vitthal Deokar; Jyoti (maternal aunt); s

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: interim order dated 05.08.2025 confirmed, subject to conditions including attendance at Ambhora Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer, no tampering

Navnath Bhausaheb Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:15264

¶2

1 903.ABA-1358-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1358 OF 2025

¶5

NAVNATH BHAUSAHEB SHINDE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

… Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Nangare Prashant R. APP for Respondent/State : Mrs. P. J. Bharad

¶8

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 8^th APRIL 2026

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Nangre for the Applicantand the learned APP Mrs. Bharad for the Respondent/State.

¶11

The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail application in connection with Crime No.314/2024 registered with Ambhora Police Station, Taluka Ashti, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that the Informant lodged complaint alleging that, on 15.12.2024, at about 06:00 a.m., one Vitthal Deokar asked the Informant that there is a proposal of a girl for the marriage at Parbhani for which he will have to pay Rs.5,00,000/-. There is scarcity of good girls for marriage in their society and therefore, the Informant assured him to pay

¶13

2 903.ABA-1358-2025.doc

¶14

Rs.3,00,000/-. Then, one Vitthal told him that he will show girl today. He obtained Rs.50,000/- in cash from Informant. Then he told that he is going to show girl to him by calling him at Ahilyanagar. Thereafter, the Informant and Vitthal went to Ahilyanagar. The Informant given his positive response after seeing the said girl. He found the age of that girl is 19 years. Immediately, they performed marriage. One Maternal aunt (Jyoti) as stated in the FIR, has taken Rs.1,50,000/- from the Informant and later she taken remaining amount also. Thereafter, the girl cohabited with the Informant from 17 December 2024 to 19 December 2024 after which she refused to cohabit with the Informant. Thus, the Informant asked her to refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Then the said maternal aunt threatened the informant of lodging complaint against him. In such situation, the complaint is lodged and the FIR is registered.

¶15

The learned Counsel submits that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the present crime. The Applicant was a mediator who had introduced the girl to the complainant at the request of one Vitthal Deokar. The entire allegations regarding the handing over of money for marriage with the girl are directed against one Jyoti (maternal aunt) and other relatives of the girl. There are no allegations that the Applicant ever accepted any amount. This Court vide its order dated 05.08.2025 has protected the Applicant upon conditions to attend the police station and cooperate with the investigation. The Applicant has attended the police station and cooperated with the investigation. The investigation as against the

¶16

3 903.ABA-1358-2025.doc

¶17

Applicant is almost complete. The Applicant is not having any criminal antecedents and is further ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence the Applicant may be protected.

¶18

As against this, the learned APP strongly opposes the present application on the ground that the Applicant is involved in the serious offence of cheating by showing the girl and extracting huge amounts from the complainant. Such offences occur in areas where girls are fewer in number for marriage purposes. Taking advantage of vulnerable villagers, certain cartels operate in the area to trap young girls. The custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary to ascertain the whereabouts of the other accused who have been absconding since the date of registration of the offence. Hence the application may be rejected.

¶19

I have gone through the investigation papers made available by the learned APP. A perusal of the FIR itself shows that the entire allegations of handing over the amount are against one Jyoti and other purported relatives of the girl who was shown to the complainant. The Applicant was not paid any amount for showing the girl for marriage. The supplementary statement dated 22.07.2025 of the complainant Sharad further suggests that there are no allegations of direct involvement of the present Applicant in the said crime.

¶20

. Be that as it may, the Applicant was protected by the order

¶21

4 903.ABA-1358-2025.doc

¶22

of this Court dated 05.08.2025. The Applicant has attended the police station and has cooperated with investigation. There are no reports of any violations of conditions imposed by this Court. I see no impediment in protecting the Applicant. Hence, the following order:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

( i ) The application is allowed.

¶25

( ii ) The interim order dated 05.08.2025 is hereby confirmed.

¶26

( iii ) The Applicant is directed to attend Ambhora Police Station, Taluka Ashti, District Beed as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

¶27

( iv ) The Applicant is directed not to tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten the complainant or the witnesses.

¶28

( v ) The Applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless so exempted by the trial Court on emergency conditions.

¶29

( vi ) The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar and PAN Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of himself and two of the near relatives.

¶30

( vii ) A single violation of the aforesaid conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail of the Applicant on that ground.

¶31

( viii ) With the aforesaid directions, the application is disposed of.

¶32

NAJEEB..

¶33

MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE

Navnath Bhausaheb Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navnath Bhausaheb Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases