Dismissed¶7

Santosh Chandrakant Katare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026ABA/3355/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; ABA 3355/2025; Santosh Chandrakant Katare; Crime No.131 of 2025; Deolali Camp Police Station Nashik City; railway job fraud Rs.19,50,000/-; forged appointment letter government stamp; BNS 2023 Ss 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 342(2) r/w 3(5); delay in FIR; false FIR mediation claim; abduction of co-accused; co-accused Santosh Gaikwad already bailed; involved in two more similar crimes; nature of crime; N.R. Borkar J.; decided 01.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Having perused the FIR, the Court found that there are specific allegations against the present Applicant. ¶7

Santosh Chandrakant Katare vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No.131 of 2025 registered with Deolali Camp Police Station, Nashik City, should be released on anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the crime, the Court was not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail and accordingly rejected the Anticipatory Bail Application.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Having perused the FIR, the Court found that there are specific allegations against the present Applicant.

¶7

Key takeaways

Because the Applicant is involved in two more crimes of a similar nature, the Court at this stage was not inclined to accept the Learned Counsel for the Applicant's submission regarding false implication.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), N.R. Borkar, J., 01.04.2026 - Anticipatory Bail Application No.3355 of 2025 by Santosh Chandrakant Katare, apprehending arrest in Crime No.131 of 2025 (Deolali Camp Police Station, Nashik City) for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 342(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Prosecution case: the Applicant and co-accused defrauded the first informant and witnesses of Rs.19,50,000/- on the pretext of railway jobs, delivering a forged appointment letter bearing government stamp and other government documents. The Applicant contended inordinate delay in the FIR, nothing to recover at his instance, a false FIR triggered by his mediation after the co-accused was allegedly abducted by the informant's side, and that forgery was by co-accused Santosh Gaikwad, already released on bail; the State submitted he was the main accused, similarly implicated in two more crimes. Holding: on perusal of the FIR there were specific allegations against the Applicant, who is involved in two more crimes of similar nature, so the Court declined to accept the false-implication submission and, considering the nature of the crime, refused anticipatory bail and rejected the Application.

¶1

1 928-ABA 3355-25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3355 OF 2025

¶3

Santosh Chandrakant Katare … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶4

Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w B. K. Barve, Sandeep Barve i/by B. K. Barve & Company for the Applicant.

¶5

Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent-State. ASI N. M. Bagul, Deolali Camp Police Station, Nashik City is present.

¶6

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 01ST APRIL 2026

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

This is an Application for anticipatory bail.

¶9

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.131 of 2025 registered with Deolali Camp Police Station, Nashik City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 342(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶10

It is the case of the prosecution that the present Applicant and other co-accused defrauded the first informant and witnesses in the present crime to the tune of Rs.19,50,000/- on the pretext of securing them job in the Railways. It is alleged that forged appointment letter bearing government stamp and other government documents were handed over to the first informant and the witnesses.

¶11

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

Mugdha

¶14

2 928-ABA 3355-25.doc

¶15

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation as nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the present Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has drawn my attention to certain documents placed on record to show that the coaccused in the present crime was abducted by the first informant and others. It is submitted that as the present Applicant tried to mediate in the said matter, false FIR is lodged against the present Applicant. It is submitted that the allegations of forgery are against the co-accused Santosh Gaikwad and he has already been released on bail.

¶16

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that the Applicant is the main accused. It is submitted that the Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶17

I have perused the FIR. There are specific allegations against the present Applicant. The Applicant is involved in two more crimes of similar nature and therefore at this stage I am not inclined to accept the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant in respect of false implication. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

¶18

2 of 2

¶19

Mugdha

Santosh Chandrakant Katare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Chandrakant Katare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Maganlal Yadav and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Pravin Ranka vs the State of Maharashtra

Dipak R Kushwaha and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Khalil Ashraf Surve vs the State of Maharashtra

Aditya Sudhir Rangnekar vs Shweta Aditya Rangnekar

Amis Michael Lopes vs State of Maharashtra