Allowed

Mayuri Mangesh Surve v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Mar 2026ABA/542/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Anticipatory Bail Application No.542 of 2026, decided 04-03-2026 by N.R. Borkar J.: Mayuri Mangesh Surve v. State of Maharashtra. Crime No.622/2025, Agripada Police Station; offences under Sections 3(5) and 305(a), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; alleged theft of Mangalsutra worth Rs.9,87,972/-. APP sought custodial interrogation for recovery; Court found implication rested on me

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: in the event of arrest in Crime No.622 of 2025 (Agripada Police Station), release on a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to attending the c

Mayuri Mangesh Surve Vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 18-ABA 542-26.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2026

¶4

Mayuri Mangesh Surve … Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Shivraj Kunchge for the Applicant. Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent-State. PSI Swapnil S. K., Agripada PS is present.

¶6

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 04TH MARCH 2026

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

This is an Application for anticipatory bail.

¶9

The Applicant is apprehending her arrest in Crime No.622 of 2025 registered with Agripada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶10

The allegations against the Applicant, who was family friend of the first informant, and other co-accused are that they stole the Mangalsutra of the first informant worth Rs.9,87,972/- from her residence.

¶11

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

¶12

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that only on the basis of suspicion, the Applicant came to be implicated in the crime in question.

1 of 2

Mugdha

2 18-ABA 542-26.doc

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that to recover the stolen Mangalsutra, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶17

I have perused the FIR. Prima facie there appears to be substance in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that only on the basis of suspicion, the Applicant came to be implicated in the crime in question. There are no other criminal antecedents against the present Applicant. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

i. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶20

ii. In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in Crime No.622 of 2025 registered with Agripada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶21

iii. The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called by the investigating officer and shall co-operate in the investigation.

¶22

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

2 of 2

Mugdha

Mayuri Mangesh Surve v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayuri Mangesh Surve 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases