Chandrashekhar Pandharinath Kudale vs State of Maharashtra

¶1

914-ABA-402-2026.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR

¶5

Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.02.13 12:07:55 +0530

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.402 OF 2026

¶7

Chandrashekhar Pandharinath Kudale …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶8

Mr. Rupesh Atul Zade, for the Applicant. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. PSI S. Y. Rajput, Yavat Police Station, Pune Rural, present.

¶9

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 12 FEBRUARY 2026

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1. Heard Mr. Zade, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant

¶12

and Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.

¶13

By the present Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.1035 of 2025 registered on 15th December 2025 with the Yavat Police Station, Pune Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(3), 324(5), 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“ BNS ”).

Page 1

Arjun

914-ABA-402-2026.DOC

The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.3 of the Order dated 2nd February 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Criminal Bail Application No.36 of 2026, which reads as under :-

¶18

“3] It is the case of prosecution that on dt.15.12.2025 at about 11.30 a.m. all the accused came near the house of informant situated in her field. Thereafter, applicant/accused viz. Chandrashekhar demolished the compound and compound gate erected outside the house of informant. Moreover, he also demolished the tin shed, trees, toilet, bathroom and two water tanks. Moreover, he also caused damage to the four wheeler and two wheeler vehicle of the informant. Similarly, accused Abhijit tried to physically assault the informant and witness Sandip Kudale by means of iron rod. Moreover, accused Ranjana and Abhijit crushed the mobile handsets of the niece of informant. Moreover, accused Ranjana, Asha, Sushma and Puja disorganised the articles kept in the house of informant. Similarly, accused Ketan cut off the ropes and untied the cattle. Similarly, all the accused abused and assaulted the informant. Hence, informant lodged report about the said incident with Yavat Police Station.”

¶19

It is the submission of Mr. Zade, learned Counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant and the First Informant are relatives. He submits that there is a dispute regarding ancestral land and, therefore, the incident has taken place. He further submits that the incident has taken place on the spur of the moment. He submits that the only role attributed to the present Applicant is that the

Page 2

Arjun

914-ABA-402-2026.DOC

Applicant has damaged the property of the First Informant. He further submits that there are a total of 11 Accused. He submits that most of the Accused have been released on anticipatory bail.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP, strongly opposes granting anticipatory bail.

¶25

Perusal of the record shows that the incident in question has taken place suddenly. There is some family dispute pending between the parties.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances, case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶27

In view thereof, the following Order is passed:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Chandrashekhar Pandharinath Kudale, in connection with CR No.1035 of 2025 registered with the Yavat Police Station, Pune Rural, he be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶30

(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer

Page 3

Arjun

914-ABA-402-2026.DOC

till filing of the Charge-sheet and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶35

(c) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶36

(d) 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 to any Police personnel.

¶37

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

¶38

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶40

Page 4

¶41

Arjun

Chandrashekhar Pandharinath Kudale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Pandharinath Kudale 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

Similar cases

1a Seema King vs Bhagwan Tuljaram Shahani and Ors.

1a Seema King vs Bhagwan Tuljaram Shahani and Ors.

Richa Indrajit Chatterjee Nee Richa Rajesh Kaura vs Indrajit Alok Kumar Chatterjee

Abc vs state of mharashtra

Tukaram Rambhau Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Mujahid Mohammad Sadique @ Mukwa vs State of Maharashtra