Allowed

Rohit Raghunath Limhan v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Feb 2026ABA/373/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, holding that except for two non-bailable offences, others were bailable, the maximum punishment was three years, and custodial interrogation was not necessary despite an antecedent from 2023 where bail was previously granted. Bail was subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to furnish P.R. bond, cooperate with investigation, and not tamper with evidence.

Rohit Raghunath Limhan vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

906-ABA-373-2026.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.373 OF 2026

¶4

Rohit Raghunath Limhan …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶5

Mr. Akshay Badve (through Video Conferencing), for the Applicant. Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 10^th FEBRUARY 2026

¶7

PC:-

¶8

Heard Mr. Badve, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Mulekar, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State.

¶9

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.118 of 2025 registered with Velha Police Station, Pune Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 324(2), 308(3), 304(2), 191(2), 189(2), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 115(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“ BNS ”).

Page 1

Sonali

906-ABA-373-2026.DOC

The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 7^th January 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.8741 of 2025, which reads as under:

¶14

“2] On 13/12/2025 informant Ketan Pravin Waghmode lodged complaint to Welha Police Station. He alleged that on 12/12/2025 in the evening he was carrying one bull in his transport cart on the instructions of its owner Ankush Shendge. When he came near Nasrapur, accused restrained his way, inquired to him about the bull. They take him on another place, assaulted him by wooden log. Then snatched his mobile phone. They transferred the amount from his mobile. They further demanded Rs.30,000/- to release his vehicle. Based on this information police has registered the crime against the accused.”

¶15

It is the submission of Mr. Badve, learned counsel appearing

¶16

on behalf of the Applicant that except the offences registered under Section 118(1) and Section 304(2) of (“BNSS”) all other offences are bailable offences. There is one antecedent of the year 2023, however he has been released on bail in that case. He further submits that the Applicant is not involved in the crime and therefore Anticipatory Bail Application be allowed.

Page 2

Sonali

906-ABA-373-2026.DOC

Ms. Mulekar, learned APP for the State, submits that the offences are very serious in nature. In the FIR the Applicant has been named. She further submits that the statement of witnesses shows that the Applicant is involved in the crime. There is one antecedent. She points out reasoning recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in the order dated 7^th January 2026. She therefore submits that the Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected.

¶21

On perusal of the record it is clear that except offence under Section 118(1) and 304(2) of BNSS all other offences are bailable. The maximum punishment is of three years. Although there is one antecedent the same is of the year 2023, where the Applicant has been released on bail. In the facts and circumstances the custodial interrogation is not necessary.

¶22

Accordingly, the case is made out for grant of Anticipatory Bail. In view thereof, the following order is passed:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant-Rohit Raghunath Limhan in connection with C.R. No.118 of

Page 3

Sonali

906-ABA-373-2026.DOC

2025 registered with the Velha Police Station, Pune Rural, Pune, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶29

(b) The Applicant shall attend the Velha Police Station, Pune Rural, Pune, on 17^th February 2026 and 18^th February 2026 between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶30

(c) The Applicant shall attend the Velha Police Station, Pune Rural, Pune, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶31

(d) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and

¶32

residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶33

(e) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or

Page 4

Sonali

906-ABA-373-2026.DOC

to any Police personnel.

¶38

(f) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any witness in any manner.

¶39

(g) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the learned Trial Court/concerned Sessions Court.

¶40

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶42

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2026.02.10 18:55:52 +0530

¶43

Page 5

¶44

Sonali

Rohit Raghunath Limhan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Raghunath Limhan v. 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

Similar cases

Ramnarain Sons Private Limited vs Andheri Girls Educations Society Thr. Its Present Trustees and Ors.

Ramnarayan Sons Private Ltd. vs the Board of Mumbai Port Authority and Anr.

Vishwas Babanrao Palkar vs Nivrutti Ramchandra Shedge

Aslam Sayyad Nabab vs Mrs .Mariyambi Shaikh Kadar

Swati Nirbhay Pimple vs Nirbhay Sudhir Pimple

Swagat Hanumant Sorte vs State of Maharashtra