Ghanshyam Jairamdas Tekchandani v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Mar 2026ABA/1644/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted, Bombay High Court, N.R. Borkar J., ABA 1644 of 2025, Crime No. 102 of 2025, Goregaon Police Station, BNS 2023 Sections 74 77 78 79 329(4) 356(2) 3(5), CCTV camera privacy dispute, incident 15.11.2024, assault and outrage of modesty allegations, cross FIR, charge-sheet filed, investigation complete, P.R. Bond Rs.25,000/-, applicants Ghanshyam J. Tekchandani, Poonam G. Tekchandani, Prem M. Saraswat, Nelson E. Columbus, State of Maharashtra, O.P. Dubey, B.B. Dubey, Savita M. Yadav APP.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all four applicants; in the event of arrest in C.R. No. 102 of 2025 registered at Goregaon Police Station, release on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety or two sureties in the like amount. ¶¶20

Ghanshyam Jairamdas Tekchandani vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

5-aba-1644-25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1644 OF 2025

¶3

Ghanshyam J. Tekchandani 2. Poonam G. Tekchandani 3. Prem M. Saraswat 4. Nelson E. Columbus …Applicants V/s.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.

¶5

Mr. O.P. Dubey and Mr. B. B. Dubey for the Applicants. Ms Savita M. Yadav, APP for the Respondent/State. PSI Shivaji D. Saravate, Goregaon Police Station is present.

¶6

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 05.03.2026.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶9

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.102 of 2025 registered at Goregaon Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 77, 78, 79, 329(4), 356(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶10

It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, which took place on 15.11.2024, dispute arose between the first informant and her husband on one side and the applicants on the other side on account of installation of CCTV cameras by the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in front of their flat, which, according to first informant, was invading their privacy. It is alleged that during

1/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

5-aba-1644-25.doc

the said dispute the present applicants assaulted the first informant and even outraged her modesty.

¶15

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

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is a cross FIR in relation to the alleged incident. It is submitted that there are no other criminal antecedents against the applicants. It is submitted that the investigation is over and the prosecution has already filed the charge-sheet against the applicants.

¶17

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State submits that considering the nature of crime, the applicants may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶18

The fact that there is a cross FIR in relation to the alleged incident is not disputed. The prosecution has already filed the charge-sheet against the applicants. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order is passed.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

A) The Application is allowed.

¶21

B) In the event of arrest of the applicants in C.R. No. 102 of 2025 registered at Goregaon Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 77, 78, 79, 329(4),

2/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

5-aba-1644-25.doc

356(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, they be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety or two sureties in the like amount.

¶26

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶27

3/3

¶28

Dinesh S. Sherla

Ghanshyam Jairamdas Tekchandani v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Jairamdas Tekchandani v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bilal Sadik Kazi vs State of Maharashtra

Parshuram Yallappa Kakshagiri vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mansingh Manglaram vs State of Maharashtra

Harsh Ashok Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Chandrakant Katare vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Chandrakant Katare vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.