Ashok Gopal Badal @ Mandal vs the State of Maharashtra

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.60 of 2026 registered with Charkop Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 333, 324(4), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 303(2), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 37(3) of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶13

It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, which took place on 13^th February 2026, the present Applicant and other coaccused formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the construction related manufacturing site of Jaiswal Construction situated at Charkop, Kandivali, Mumbai. It is alleged that the present Applicant and other co-

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

Mugdha

¶16

2 907-ABA 595-26.doc

¶17

accused assaulted the workers, who were working there, for non-payment of extortion money by the owner of said manufacturing unit. It is further alleged that they caused damage to the CCTV cameras and other articles.

¶18

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Learned APP for the Respondent-State and Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that as the Applicant and other local residents made the complaint against Jaiswal Construction for encroaching upon MHADA land and running the said manufacturing unit, false allegations are made against the Applicant. In support of the said submission, Learned Counsel for the Applicant has drawn my attention to the various documents placed on record. It is submitted that nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the present Applicant and therefore there is no need of his custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that there are no other criminal antecedents against the present Applicant.

¶20

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State and Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submit that the Applicant is involved in serious crime of extortion. It is submitted that the present Applicant and the other co-accused assaulted the security guard and the engineer for extortion of money. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary.

¶21

I have perused the documents placed on record. It appears from the documents that the complaints were made in respect of the said manufacturing unit to the various authorities. There is a letter of MHADA

2 of 3

Mugdha

3 907-ABA 595-26.doc

which shows that no permission was granted to the Jaiswal Construction for running the said manufacturing unit. The allegations of snatching of gold chain are made after 14 days of lodging of the FIR. There are no other criminal antecedents against the present Applicant. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶28

ii. In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in Crime No.60 of 2026 registered with Charkop Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 333, 324(4), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 303(2), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 37(3) of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, 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.

¶29

iii. The Applicant shall not visit the manufacturing site in question.

¶30

iv. The Applicant shall not commit any other crime.

¶31

v. Liberty is granted to the prosecution to file an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail in case the Applicant commits breach of any of the above conditions.

¶32

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

3 of 3

Mugdha

Ashok Gopal Badal @ Mandal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Gopal Badal @ Mandal v. the 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudha Swamy vs State of Maharashtra

Pallavi Dalmia (Nee Pallavi Agarwal) vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sushil Kantilal Jain vs the State of Maharashtra

Jayesh Vilas Karandikar vs Seema Jayesh Karandikar

Dilawar Majid Memon vs the State of Maharashtra

Girish Vats vs the State of Maharashtra