Allowed¶34

Siddhesh Arun Salaskar v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Apr 2026ABA/1677/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed; Section 69 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; false pretext of marriage; consensual relationship between married adults; investigation concluded, charge sheet filed; nothing to recover or discover; Vikhroli Police Station C.R. No.225/2025; Siddhesh Arun Salaskar; Bombay High Court; R.N. Laddha J.; 16 April 2026; PR Bond Rs.25,000/-; conditions against tampering, witness influence and contact with victim.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: in the event of arrest in CR No.225 of 2025, release on executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, shall regularly attend and cooperate with the trial Court, and shall not contact the victim in any manner whatsoever. ¶34

Siddhesh Arun Salaskar vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in C.R. No.225 of 2025 (offence punishable under Section 69 BNS) registered at Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai, should be granted pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail.

¶26

Court's answer

On perusal of the records, the applicant and the victim are married and of legal age, having been involved in a consensual relationship spanning July 2023 to April 2025.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The investigation has concluded and a charge sheet has been filed; nothing is to be recovered or discovered at the applicant's instance.

¶28

Key takeaways

Apprehensions of potential evidence tampering and witness influence can be mitigated by imposing appropriate conditions.ratio¶28
In light of the foregoing, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted in a case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (physical relations under alleged false pretext of marriage): the Court found on perusal of records that the applicant and the informant/victim are married adults who were in a consensual relationship (July 2023 to April 2025); the investigation had concluded with a charge sheet filed and nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from the applicant; apprehensions of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses were held capable of mitigation by conditions. Bail ordered on a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount, with conditions against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, requiring regular attendance and cooperation with the trial Court, and prohibiting any contact with the victim. (R.N. Laddha, J.)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2026.04.17 18:05:53 Chitra Sonawane. 36-ABA-1677-2025.docx+0530

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Anticipatory Bail Application No.1677 of 2025

¶4

Siddhesh Arun Salaskar Age: 30 Years, Occ: Service, R/at: Flat No.8, Raghunath, Ashish CHS, Gavan Pada, Mulund (E), Mumbai

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of the Senior P.I. - Vikhroli Police Station, MumbaiVide C.R.No.225/2025)

¶8

XYZ (To be informed through Vikhroli Police Station) … Respondents

¶9

Mr Aniket Nikam, a/w. Mr Sumit Patil, i/b Mr Amit Icham, for the applicant.

¶10

Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for the respondent/ State.

¶11

Mr Advait U Shukla, Appointed Advocate for respondent No.2 through Legal Aid.

¶12

PI Sandesh Y Mane, Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai.

¶13

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 16 April 2026.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with CR

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

16 April 2026

¶18

Chitra Sonawane. 36-ABA-1677-2025.docx

¶19

No.225 of 2025, registered at Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶20

According to the prosecution, between July 2023 and April 2025, under the false pretext of marriage, the applicant engaged in physical relations with the informant. Subsequently, the applicant reneged on his commitment and avoided further contact with the victim.

¶21

Mr Aniket Nikam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, asserting the applicant’s innocence, contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. He submits that both the applicant and the informant/victim are consenting and married adults who were engaged in a consensual relationship. The ingredients of Section 69 BNS are not prima facie attracted to the applicant. It is further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. The investigation has concluded, culminating in a charge sheet. There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant is ready to abide by any conditions this Court deems fit to impose, including refraining from contacting the victim and co-operating with the trial proceedings.

Page 2 of 4

16 April 2026

Chitra Sonawane.

36-ABA-1677-2025.docx

¶26

Mr Arfan Sait, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/ State, and Mr Advait Shukla, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ victim, jointly oppose the applicant’s request for pre-arrest bail. They submit that the offence is of a grave and serious nature, and express concerns about potential tampering with evidence or the influence of witnesses if the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail. However, the learned APP acknowledges that the investigation has concluded, a charge sheet has been filed, and no recovery or discovery is to be effected at the applicant’s behest.

¶27

This Court has considered the submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the records.

¶28

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the applicant and the victim are married and of legal age, having been involved in a consensual relationship. Their relationship appears to have spanned from July 2023 to April 2025. The learned APP acknowledges that the investigation has concluded and a charge sheet has been filed. Nothing is to be recovered or discovered at the applicant’s instance. The apprehensions regarding potential evidence tampering and witness influence can be mitigated by imposing appropriate conditions. In light of the foregoing, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the following order:

Page 3 of 4

16 April 2026

Chitra Sonawane.

36-ABA-1677-2025.docx

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) In the event of the applicant’s arrest in CR No.225 of 2025, registered at Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai, he shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶35

(ii) The applicant, himself or through any other person, shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend and cooperate with the trial Court for the expeditious disposal of the case. (iv) The applicant shall not contact the victim in any manner whatsoever.

¶36

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

[R.N. Laddha, J.]

¶38

Page 4 of 4

¶39

16 April 2026

Siddhesh Arun Salaskar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddhesh Arun Salaskar 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

Ganesh Mahendra Dhadawe vs the State of Maharashtra

Janak Uttam Jain vs The State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Vitthalrao Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Mansoor Mohamed Ateeque Ansari vs the State of Maharashtra

Akshay Suresh Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra

Amardep Baban Waghpanje vs State of Maharashtra