Sanjay Martand Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Feb 2026ABA/187/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted; Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 7 and 7A; bribe demand Rs. 30,000/-; pay fixation order 15.10.2025 w.e.f. 14.10.2025; FIR lodged 15.1.2026 for demand of 27.11.2025; delay in FIR; possibility of false implication; custodial interrogation unnecessary; voice sample taken; mobile phone seized; no criminal history; interim relief confirmed; Crime No. 9 of 2025, Vedantnagar Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar; Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab (2025) 4 SCC 493; Special Judge order in Bail Application No. 136 of 2026; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; R.M. Joshi, J.; 9 June 2026.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted by confirmation of the interim relief; pending criminal application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶order

Sanjay Martand Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Corruption | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted by confirmation of the interim relief; pending criminal application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶order

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is entitled to anticipatory bail where he makes out a case of possible false implication. +2 more

¶5

Court's answer

If an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out, the applicant would not be entitled to anticipatory bail; however, where the applicant makes out a case of possible false implication, there is no embargo created by law for protecting the liberty of the applicant.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie there is substance in the contention that the question of the applicant demanding money for passing the pay-fixation order would not arise, the order having been passed on 15.10.2025 w.e.f. 14.10.2025.

¶6

Key takeaways

Considering the delay in lodging of the FIR and the peculiar facts of the case indicating that the order for which the demand of money was made was passed on 15.10.2025, the possibility of false implication exists.ratio¶7
With the applicant's voice sample already obtained by the investigating agency and his mobile phone seized, there remains no reason for his custodial interrogation.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (R.M. Joshi, J.), 9 June 2026 — Anticipatory Bail Application No. 187 of 2026 allowed. The applicant, accused under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Crime No. 9 of 2025, Vedantnagar Police Station) of demanding Rs. 30,000/- for pay-scale fixation, was granted anticipatory bail. While accepting the proposition urged by the APP on the strength of Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493 (paras 21-24), that a person who commits a PC Act offence is not entitled to anticipatory bail, the Court held that where the applicant makes out a case of possible false implication there is no legal embargo on protecting his liberty. Such a possibility was found on the facts: the informant's pay-fixation order was passed on 15.10.2025 (w.e.f. 14.10.2025), before the alleged demand of 27.11.2025, and the FIR followed only on 15.1.2026. With the applicant's voice sample already taken and his mobile phone seized, custodial interrogation was held unnecessary; the applicant has no criminal history and is not likely to flee from justice. Interim relief confirmed; pending criminal applications disposed of.

¶1

922 sr.no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2026

¶5

Sanjay Martand Jagtap

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶9

…..Respondent

¶10

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Hashmi Ubaid S. APP for Respondents: Mr. A.V. Lawate.

¶11

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2026.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 9 of 2025, registered with Vedantnagar Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶15

In short, the case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of the report lodged by the first informant, the present applicant demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for himself as well for the Joint Director of Higher Education for the purpose of fixation of the pay scale of the informant. On the basis of the said report, the offence came to be registered against the applicant.

¶16

Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, drew attention of this Court to the documentary evidence indicating that the order has already been passed on 15^th October, 2025 by the Committee granting pay fixation to the informant w.e.f. 14^th October,

¶17

{2}

¶18

922 sr.no..odt

¶19

It is his submission that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that even before the registration of the FIR, house of the applicant at Nasik was sought to be searched/raided by the investigating agency. In this regard, reference is made to the order passed by the Special Judge, in Bail Application No. 136 of 2026. It is further his submission that, in any case, the applicant’s voice sample has already been taken, so also, his mobile is seized, further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. The applicant has no criminal history and hence, according to him, he is not likely to flee from justice.

¶20

The learned APP, at the outset, took exception to the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant by relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. State of Punjab (2025) 4 SCC 493, particularly, to para. Nos. 21 to 24 thereof. On merits, it is his submission that there is a specific allegation against the applicant of demanding Rs. 30,000/- which is supported by electronic record. In this regard, he drew attention of the transcript of the mobile conversation between the applicant and the informant.

¶21

There can not be any dispute about the proposition of law sought to be canvassed on behalf of the prosecution that if the offence is made out under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the applicant would not be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in case the applicant makes out a case of possible false implication, there is no embargo created by law for protecting the liberty of the applicant.

¶22

In the instant case, there is allegation against the present applicant that the demand of Rs. 30,000/- was made by him for the purpose of seeking an order of pay fixation. Pertinently, the FIR is lodged

¶23

{3}

¶24

922 sr.no..odt

¶25

on 15.1.2026, in spite of the fact that the alleged demand was made on 27.11.2025. The delay itself is not decisive factor in all criminal cases but assumes importance in this case in view of the documentary evidence placed on record by the applicant. The documents before this Court indicate that on 15.10.2025, the order of pay fixation of the informant was passed w.e.f. 14.10.2025. Thus, prima facie, there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the question of demanding any money for passing such order would not arise.

¶26

Considering the delay in lodging of the FIR, so also, the peculiar facts of the case, indicating that the order, for which the demand of money was made, was passed on 15.10.2025, the possibility of false implication exists. In this backdrop, when the voice sample of the applicant is already obtained by the investigating agency, coupled with mobile phone from him, there remains no reason for his custodial interrogation. Applicant has no criminal history and he is not likelyi to flee from justice. Hence, this is a fit case for confirmation of the interim relief.

¶27

7. O R D E R

¶28

[I] The application is allowed, by confirming the interim relief. [ii] Pending criminal application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶29

grt/-

Sanjay Martand Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Martand Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sujeet Rambachan Prajapati vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Muka Shaikh @ Smeer Diwana vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijendra Namdeo Kamble vs State of Maharashtra

Manisha Ganesh Thakare and Ors. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Akash @ Sunny Bhupat Das vs State of Maharashtra

Hulchal Lalji Garg vs the State of Maharashtra