Allowed¶6

Sudhir Madhukar Bansode and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Apr 2026ABA/645/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: anticipatory bail; pre-arrest bail; aba645.26; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Section 305(A); Section 331(1)(2); theft; gold ring; water tanks; vehicle seat; Crime No. 348/2025; Crime No. 716/2024; Shrirampur City Police Station; District Ahilyanagar; delayed FIR; unexplained delay; disputes between parties; false implication; concocted statements; scrap dealer statement; witness Sahil; interim order dated 29.04.2026; Clause No. (b); R. M. Joshi; Bombay High Court Aurangabad; 10 June 2026. Use when researching anticipatory bail granted where the FIR is belated and prosecution witness material appears fabricated or inconsistent.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to the Applicants in terms of the interim order dated 29.04.2026, except Clause No. (b). ¶6

Sudhir Madhukar Bansode and Another vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pre-arrest bail granted to the Applicants in terms of the interim order dated 29.04.2026, except Clause No. (b).

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicants are entitled to anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail in connection with Crime No. 348/2025 registered under Sections 305(A) and 331(1)(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

There is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the First Information Report (incident revealed on 23.03.2025, report lodged on 27.03.2025); although delay is not fatal in all cases, where there are disputes between the parties the delay must be explained satisfactorily, and the absence of explanation assumes importance in this matter.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution's material does not credibly connect the Applicants to the crime: no further investigation identified the vehicle seat sold to the scrap dealer as the informant's property, and the witness statements are mutually inconsistent (one seeing the water tanks taken away at 2.00 pm, another seeing the Applicants emptying them at 4.00 pm); on its face the statements are concocted and the possibility of false implication of the Applicants exists.

¶6

Key takeaways

In view of the possibility of false implication, the Applicants' liberty deserves to be protected and the anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the interim order dated 29.04.2026, except Clause No. (b).ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 645 of 2026 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, R. M. Joshi, J., decided 10 June 2026): Applicants sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 348/2025 (Shrirampur City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar) under Sections 305(A) and 331(1)(2), Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from allegations of theft of a gold ring, two water tanks and a vehicle seat. The Court noted a four-day unexplained delay in lodging the FIR despite admitted disputes between the parties, absence of any investigation identifying the seat sold to a scrap dealer as the informant's property, and mutually contradictory witness statements (tanks seen taken at 2.00 pm but seen being emptied by the Applicants at 4.00 pm). Finding the statements concocted and the possibility of false implication real, the Court held the Applicants' liberty deserved protection and allowed the application in terms of the interim order dated 29.04.2026, except Clause No. (b). No precedent was cited; the ruling turns on this Court's own assessment of the FIR delay and defective prosecution material.

¶1

¶2

aba645.26.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

925 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 645 OF 2026

¶5

Sudhir Madhukar Bansode & another ….Applicants VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra …..Respondent

¶7

MR. A. B. Chormal, Advocate for Applicants. Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for the State. Mr. A. S. Hazari, Advocate (appointed) for the Informant.

¶8

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2026.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 348/2025 registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 305(A), 331(1)(2), of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶11

First informant Reena Bansode lodged report on 27.03.2025 stating that on 05.02.2025, she along with her husband, went to Pandharpur. However, her daughters were at home. It is further stated that on 11.02.2025 at about 3.30 pm, informant along with her son-in-law went to Ghodegaon. While going, she locked her house. On 23.03.2025, when she returned home, it was found that

¶12

¶13

aba645.26.odt

¶14

the cupboard in the house was open and gold ring was missing. She also found that two water tanks kept in the courtyard were also missing. Similarly, seat of four wheeler vehicle was found missing. On enquiry with neighbours, she came to know that the present Applicants committed said theft. On the basis of said allegations, offence came to be registered against the Applicants.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that there are disputes between the parties and owing to the said dispute, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. It is his submission that there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the present Applicants with the crime in question. He claims that there are no criminal antecedents against the Applicants and they are not likely to flee from justice.

¶16

Learned APP and learned counsel for the Informant opposed the application. Learned APP places reliance on statement of scrap dealer as well as two other witnesses which, according to her, sufficiently demonstrate involvement of present Applicants in the crime. It is further submitted that there is another crime bearing

¶17

- 3 -

¶18

aba645.26.odt

¶19

Crime No. 716/2024 registered against the Applicants and hence, they are not entitled for bail.

¶20

At the outset, it needs to be recorded that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report. Delay does not become fatal in all cases however, when there are disputes between the parties, delay must be explained satisfactorily. As per the First Information Report, the incident of theft was revealed to the informant on 23.03.2025 however, report was lodged on 27.03.2025. There is no explanation provided in the First Information Report for belatedly reporting the incident to the police. This assumes importance in the light of the fact that there are disputes between the parties.

¶21

Prosecution is relying on statement of scrap dealer and claims that the present Applicants sold the seat of four wheeler vehicle to him. There is however, no further investigation done to identify the said seat to be the property belonging to the informant. The statement of witness Sahil indicates that at 2.00 pm, he has seen the plastic water tanks being taken away by the present Applicants. However, surprisingly, another witness claims that at 4.00 pm, he had seen the present Applicants emptying those water tanks. Thus,

¶22

aba645.26.odt

¶23

on the face of it, the statements are concocted. Suffice it to say that the possibility of false implication of the Applicants exists here in this case. In view of the same, applicants’ liberty deserves to be protected. Application, therefore, stands allowed in terms of the interim order dated 29.04.2026, except Clause No. (b).

¶24

dyb

Sudhir Madhukar Bansode and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Madhukar Bansode and Another 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

Mahendrakumar Okharam Meghwal vs State of Maharashtra

Hazrat Ali Rehman Ali Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Amol Kisan Vidhate vs State of Maharashtra

Suryadeep Malhotra vs Union of India

Krishna Kamleshri Yadav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Darshan Nishikant Parajnape vs the State of Maharashtra